Ironopolis Film Co Ltd & Ors v Fox [2009] UKEAT 0314_08_0705 (7 May 2009)

Ironopolis Film Co Ltd & Ors v Fox [2009] UKEAT 0314_08_0705 (7 May 2009)

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by treating the individual respondents as debarred from participation under Rule 9 when their responses had been struck out under Rule 18(7); this deprived them of the opportunity to make representations. The findings of liability against the individual respondents were set aside and the case remitted for rehearing. The finding of liability against the company remains.

Citation
[2009] UKEAT 0314_08_0705
Parties
Appellant/first Respondent: Ironopolis Film Company Limited; Appellant/second Respondent: Mr McCarthy; Appellant/third Respondent: Mr Stalker; Appellant/fourth Respondent: Mr Stangoe; Respondent/claimant: Ms Fox
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
07 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Striking Out of Response, Procedural Fairness, Sex Discrimination, Personal Liability of Directors, Holiday Pay, Unlawful Deduction From Wages
Employment Law Striking Out of Response Procedural Fairness Sex Discrimination Personal Liability of Directors Holiday Pay Unlawful Deduction From Wages

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ironopolis Film Company Limited

Appellant/first Respondent

Mr McCarthy

Appellant/second Respondent

Mr Stalker

Appellant/third Respondent

Mr Stangoe

Appellant/fourth Respondent

Ms Fox

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in striking out the responses of the individual respondents under Rule 18(7) and treating them as debarred under Rule 9
  2. 2 Whether the individual respondents were deprived of the opportunity to make representations
  3. 3 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in finding personal liability of individual respondents for sex discrimination, holiday pay, and deductions from wages

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by treating the individual respondents as debarred from participation under Rule 9 when their responses had been struck out under Rule 18(7); this deprived them of the opportunity to make representations. The findings of liability against the individual respondents were set aside and the case remitted for rehearing. The finding of liability against the company remains.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Judgment on liability of the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents set aside
  • Case against Second, Third and Fourth Respondents remitted to a differently constituted Employment Tribunal