Harada Ltd. (t/a Chequepoint) v Turner

Harada Ltd. (t/a Chequepoint) v Turner

Harada had no good reason for not attending the merits hearing; participation would not have constituted submission to jurisdiction under Article 18 of the Brussels Convention, as the jurisdictional objection was properly and timely raised. The refusal to review the merits decision and the order for costs were...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Harada Limited (t/a Chequepoint); Respondent: Turner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
applications for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Constructive Dismissal, Costs, Review of Tribunal Decisions, Brussels Convention Article 18
Employment Law Civil Procedure Private International Law Jurisdiction Constructive Dismissal Costs Review of Tribunal Decisions Brussels Convention Article 18

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harada Limited (t/a Chequepoint)

Applicant

Turner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Harada Limited was justified in not attending the merits hearing before the Employment Tribunal due to concerns about submitting to jurisdiction under Article 18 of the Brussels Convention
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal erred in dismissing Harada's appeal against the refusal to review the merits decision
  3. 3 Whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal's order for costs against Harada was proper

Ratio Decidendi

Harada had no good reason for not attending the merits hearing; participation would not have constituted submission to jurisdiction under Article 18 of the Brussels Convention, as the jurisdictional objection was properly and timely raised. The refusal to review the merits decision and the order for costs were correct in law, as the proceedings were unnecessary and/or vexatious.

Court Disposition

applications for permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • applications for permission to appeal dismissed
  • costs order against Harada Limited upheld