Kerr v. Ernst & Young Services Ltd & Ors [2011] UKEAT 0567_10_1402 (14 February 2011)

Kerr v. Ernst & Young Services Ltd & Ors [2011] UKEAT 0567_10_1402 (14 February 2011)

The Employment Judge's order precluding the claimant from seeking a remedy against certain individuals was, in substance, a strike-out of part of the claim and a determination of civil rights, which could not lawfully be made at a case management discussion and without giving the claimant an opportunity to make...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] UKEAT 0567_10_1402
Parties
Appellant: Appellant (Claimant); Respondent: Respondents
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
14 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Case Management Order of Employment Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Case Management, Striking Out, Jurisdiction, Procedural Fairness, Sex Discrimination, Disability Discrimination, Equal Pay
Employment Law Civil Procedure Case Management Striking Out Jurisdiction Procedural Fairness Sex Discrimination Disability Discrimination +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant (Claimant)

Appellant

Respondents

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Case Management Order of Employment Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Judge had jurisdiction to make an order precluding the claimant from seeking a remedy against certain individuals at a case management discussion
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Judge acted unlawfully by making the order without hearing submissions from the claimant
  3. 3 Whether the decision to make the order was perverse on the evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Judge's order precluding the claimant from seeking a remedy against certain individuals was, in substance, a strike-out of part of the claim and a determination of civil rights, which could not lawfully be made at a case management discussion and without giving the claimant an opportunity to make submissions; the order was also perverse on the evidence before the Tribunal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Paragraph 5 of the Orders and Case Management direction dated 8 October 2010 is struck out.