Evans v. Parasol Ltd & Anor [2009] UKEAT 0536_08_2307 (23 July 2009)

Evans v. Parasol Ltd & Anor [2009] UKEAT 0536_08_2307 (23 July 2009)

Given the legal and factual complexity of agency worker relationships and the emergence of new evidence (email), it was inappropriate to strike out the claim or refuse a review. The interests of justice required that the claim proceed to trial on the merits against both respondents.

Citation
[2009] UKEAT 0536_08_2307
Parties
Appellant: Dr Patricia Evans; First Respondent: Parasol Ltd; Second Respondent: RSA Consulting Ltd
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
23 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Strike Out and Refusal to Review
Outcome
Appeal allowed; strike-out and refusal to review set aside; case remitted for rehearing before a different judge.
Legal Topics
Agency Workers, Striking Out, Jurisdiction, Employment Contracts, Notice Period, Review of Tribunal Decisions
Employment Law Agency Workers Striking Out Jurisdiction Employment Contracts Notice Period Review of Tribunal Decisions

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Patricia Evans

Appellant

Parasol Ltd

First Respondent

RSA Consulting Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Strike Out and Refusal to Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether striking out of agency worker's claim for outstanding wages was appropriate given legal and factual complexity
  2. 2 Whether refusal to admit new evidence (email) and refusal to review was correct
  3. 3 Whether there was a contractual relationship between the claimant and the second respondent (RSA) under Employment Rights Act 1996, s.230

Ratio Decidendi

Given the legal and factual complexity of agency worker relationships and the emergence of new evidence (email), it was inappropriate to strike out the claim or refuse a review. The interests of justice required that the claim proceed to trial on the merits against both respondents.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; strike-out and refusal to review set aside; case remitted for rehearing before a different judge.

Orders

  • Strike-out of claims against both respondents set aside
  • Refusal to review set aside