Eversheds LLP v Gray (Practice and Procedure : Preliminary issues) [2011] UKEAT 0585_11_2911 (29 November 2011)

Eversheds LLP v Gray (Practice and Procedure : Preliminary issues) [2011] UKEAT 0585_11_2911 (29 November 2011)

The Employment Judge erred in law by failing to make clear findings on whether the without prejudice material was confidential under Rule 16(1)(b) and whether the evidence was likely to consist of such information. The appeal was allowed because these omissions were material errors, and upon conducting the required balancing exercise, the correct outcome was that the PHR should be held in private to protect the confidentiality of without prejudice negotiations.

Citation
[2011] UKEAT 0585_11_2911
Parties
Claimant: Mr Gray; Respondent: Eversheds LLP
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
29 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Against Interlocutory Ruling (pre Hearing Review)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Without Prejudice Privilege, Confidentiality, Open Justice, Case Management, Disability Discrimination
Employment Law Civil Procedure Without Prejudice Privilege Confidentiality Open Justice Case Management Disability Discrimination

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Gray

Claimant

Eversheds LLP

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Against Interlocutory Ruling (pre Hearing Review)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pre-hearing review (PHR) on without prejudice privilege should be held in private under ET Rule 16(1)(b)
  2. 2 Whether without prejudice communications are confidential within the meaning of Rule 16(1)(b)
  3. 3 Balancing open justice with confidentiality in settlement negotiations

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Judge erred in law by failing to make clear findings on whether the without prejudice material was confidential under Rule 16(1)(b) and whether the evidence was likely to consist of such information. The appeal was allowed because these omissions were material errors, and upon conducting the required balancing exercise, the correct outcome was that the PHR should be held in private to protect the confidentiality of without prejudice negotiations.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The Employment Judge's ruling is set aside.
  • The pre-hearing review (PHR) is to be held in private.