Neely v. Abbey National Plc [2003] UKEAT 0045_03_2611 (26 November 2003)
The questions order was refused because it would improperly compel the respondents to make admissions based on a contentious document prepared by the appellant's solicitor. The document recovery order was refused because the respondents had stated they had no further documents to produce, and the Tribunal accepted this position, binding the respondents to it.
- Citation
- [2003] UKEAT 0045_03_2611
- Parties
- Appellant: Applicant Appellant; Respondent: Respondents
- Jurisdiction
- United Kingdom
- Judgment Date
- 26 November 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Constructive Dismissal, Document Disclosure, Questions Order, Admissions
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Applicant Appellant
Appellant
Respondents
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in refusing a questions order against the respondents.
- 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in refusing a document recovery order against the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
The questions order was refused because it would improperly compel the respondents to make admissions based on a contentious document prepared by the appellant's solicitor. The document recovery order was refused because the respondents had stated they had no further documents to produce, and the Tribunal accepted this position, binding the respondents to it.
Court Disposition
appeal refused
Orders
- Appeal against refusal of questions order dismissed.
- Appeal against refusal of document recovery order dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment