Rolls Royce Plc v. Riddle [2008] UKEAT 0044_07_1803 (18 March 2008)

Rolls Royce Plc v. Riddle [2008] UKEAT 0044_07_1803 (18 March 2008)

The Tribunal applied the wrong legal test by focusing on 'excessive delay' rather than whether the claim had not been actively pursued; the claimant's conduct, including misrepresentation of medical fitness and failure to progress the case, amounted to intentional and contumelious default, justifying strike out under Rule 18(7)(d).

Citation
[2008] UKEAT 0044_07_1803
Parties
Appellant: Claimant (Mr Riddle); Respondent: Respondents (Rolls Royce)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
18 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Employment Tribunal's Refusal to Strike Out Claim
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Tribunal's order quashed; claim struck out.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Failure to Actively Pursue Claim, Tribunal Discretion, Procedural Default
Employment Law Civil Procedure Strike Out Applications Failure to Actively Pursue Claim Tribunal Discretion Procedural Default

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant (Mr Riddle)

Appellant

Respondents (Rolls Royce)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Employment Tribunal's Refusal to Strike Out Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal applied the correct legal test in refusing to strike out the claim for failure to actively pursue
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's conduct amounted to intentional and contumelious default justifying strike out

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal applied the wrong legal test by focusing on 'excessive delay' rather than whether the claim had not been actively pursued; the claimant's conduct, including misrepresentation of medical fitness and failure to progress the case, amounted to intentional and contumelious default, justifying strike out under Rule 18(7)(d).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Tribunal's order quashed; claim struck out.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The Employment Tribunal's order of 26 July 2007 is quashed.