Euro Hotels (Thornton Heath) Ltd v Alam [2009] UKEAT 0006_09_2004 (20 April 2009)

Euro Hotels (Thornton Heath) Ltd v Alam [2009] UKEAT 0006_09_2004 (20 April 2009)

The Tribunal erred in law by giving undue weight to the Respondent's ability to recover from insurers, failing to consider procedural fairness regarding the absence and subsequent attendance of the Respondent, and not properly applying the principles for review of judgments given in absence. The original and review judgments are set aside except for costs orders.

Citation
[2009] UKEAT 0006_09_2004
Parties
Appellant/respondent: Peninsula Business Services Ltd; Respondent/claimant: Claimant (unnamed)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
20 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Against Refusal to Review Default Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; original and review judgments set aside except for costs orders; case remitted for full hearing on merits.
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Judgment, Postponement or Stay, Procedural Fairness
Employment Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Review of Judgment Postponement or Stay Procedural Fairness

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peninsula Business Services Ltd

Appellant/respondent

Claimant (unnamed)

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Against Refusal to Review Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in refusing to review a default judgment made in the absence of the Respondent
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal wrongly considered the Respondent's ability to recover from insurers as a determinative factor
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness required a telephone call to the absent party

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in law by giving undue weight to the Respondent's ability to recover from insurers, failing to consider procedural fairness regarding the absence and subsequent attendance of the Respondent, and not properly applying the principles for review of judgments given in absence. The original and review judgments are set aside except for costs orders.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; original and review judgments set aside except for costs orders; case remitted for full hearing on merits.

Orders

  • Original and review judgments set aside except for costs orders.
  • Full hearing on merits ordered.