CPM UK Ltd v Kadama [2003] UKEAT 0803_03_2010 (20 October 2003)

CPM UK Ltd v Kadama [2003] UKEAT 0803_03_2010 (20 October 2003)

There was no proper order for particulars identifying the particulars to be given; the jurisdiction to strike out under Rule 4(8) depends on a requirement first being made and not complied with; even if there had been such an order, striking out was a disproportionate response as there was no adequate consideration...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2003] UKEAT 0803_03_2010
Parties
Appellant: CPM UK Ltd; Respondent: Mr Peter Kadama
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
20 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Employment Tribunal Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutory Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Victimisation, Constructive Dismissal, Procedural Fairness, Striking Out, Further and Better Particulars
Employment Law Race Discrimination Victimisation Constructive Dismissal Procedural Fairness Striking Out Further and Better Particulars

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 1 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CPM UK Ltd

Appellant

Mr Peter Kadama

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal Appeal / Appeal Against Interlocutory Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal Chairman erred in striking out the Notice of Appearance and debarring the Respondent from defending for failure to comply with an order for further and better particulars
  2. 2 Whether there was a proper order for particulars
  3. 3 Whether striking out was a proportionate response to the default

Ratio Decidendi

There was no proper order for particulars identifying the particulars to be given; the jurisdiction to strike out under Rule 4(8) depends on a requirement first being made and not complied with; even if there had been such an order, striking out was a disproportionate response as there was no adequate consideration of prejudice, injustice, or proportionality.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order striking out the Notice of Appearance set aside
  • Respondent to provide further and better particulars in accordance with specified paragraphs of the email dated 18 July 2003 by 4.30pm on 3 November 2003