Panama v. London Borough of Hackney [2005] UKEAT 0364_04_2402 (24 February 2005)

Panama v. London Borough of Hackney [2005] UKEAT 0364_04_2402 (24 February 2005)

The Tribunal's decision to strike out the Applicant's claim for unreasonable conduct was within its discretion, supported by findings of deliberate and contumelious conduct, and consistent with the overriding objective and relevant legal authorities. No error of law or perversity was established.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] UKEAT 0364_04_2402
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Felicia Panama; Respondent: London Borough of Hackney
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
24 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Employment Tribunal Appeal / Appeal From Et's Strike Out Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Unreasonable Conduct, Fair Hearing, Case Management, Remedies, Discrimination, Dismissal, Compensation
Employment Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Strike Out Applications Unreasonable Conduct Fair Hearing Case Management Remedies +3 more

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Felicia Panama

Applicant/appellant

London Borough of Hackney

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal Appeal / Appeal From Et's Strike Out Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal's decision to strike out the Applicant's Originating Applications for unreasonable conduct was perverse
  2. 2 Whether the strike out was proportionate and compliant with Article 6 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether a fair trial was still possible given the Applicant's conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal's decision to strike out the Applicant's claim for unreasonable conduct was within its discretion, supported by findings of deliberate and contumelious conduct, and consistent with the overriding objective and relevant legal authorities. No error of law or perversity was established.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Originating Applications struck out
  • No compensation awarded