E Aird & Ors v Asda Stores Ltd & Ors

E Aird & Ors v Asda Stores Ltd & Ors

The Employment Judge was entitled to refuse the order for provision of all correspondence and documents to Keller Postman claimants, as absolute equality between groups of claimants is not required in multi-party litigation and differences may arise from choice of representation. The Judge properly balanced the overriding objective and exercised his case management discretion within the permissible ambit. No error of law, failure to consider relevant factors, or perversity was established.

Parties
Appellant: Ms E Aird and Others; Respondent: Asda Stores Ltd; Respondent: Mrs S Brierley and Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Case Management Order
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Equal Pay, Case Management, Multi Claimant Litigation, Disclosure of Documents
Employment Law Civil Procedure Equal Pay Case Management Multi Claimant Litigation Disclosure of Documents

Case Brief

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms E Aird and Others

Appellant

Asda Stores Ltd

Respondent

Mrs S Brierley and Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Case Management Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Judge erred in refusing to order provision of all correspondence and documents between parties in the Brierley Multiple to Keller Postman claimants
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Judge failed to consider relevant factors or took irrelevant factors into account
  3. 3 Whether the decision was perverse

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Judge was entitled to refuse the order for provision of all correspondence and documents to Keller Postman claimants, as absolute equality between groups of claimants is not required in multi-party litigation and differences may arise from choice of representation. The Judge properly balanced the overriding objective and exercised his case management discretion within the permissible ambit. No error of law, failure to consider relevant factors, or perversity was established.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed