Cass v Actionmicro Ltd [1996] UKEAT 525_96_2811 (28 November 1996)

The Tribunal erred in law by treating the stay as an absolute bar to further proceedings; the correct approach is that a stay may be lifted if good cause is shown.

Citation: [1996] UKEAT 525_96_2811
Parties: Appellant: Clive Cass; Respondents: Unknown Respondents
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Judgment Date: 28 November 1996
Procedural Posture: Employment Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Tribunal Decision on Jurisdiction
Outcome: Appeal allowed
Legal Topics: Unfair Dismissal, Stay of Proceedings, Compromise Agreements, Jurisdiction of Tribunal

Employment Law Unfair Dismissal Stay of Proceedings Compromise Agreements Jurisdiction of Tribunal

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Clive Cass

Appellant

Unknown Respondents

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Tribunal Decision on Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

1 Whether a compromise agreement (COT3) and stay of proceedings bar further pursuit of an unfair dismissal claim
2 Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself in treating the stay as an absolute bar

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in law by treating the stay as an absolute bar to further proceedings; the correct approach is that a stay may be lifted if good cause is shown.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

Order of the Industrial Tribunal set aside
Review of the decision to be heard by a different Tribunal as soon as possible