Metanie v. Edwards & Anor [2003] UKEAT 0390_03_1709 (17 September 2003)

Metanie v. Edwards & Anor [2003] UKEAT 0390_03_1709 (17 September 2003)

The applicant's conduct was inordinate, inexcusable, vexatious, scandalous, and unreasonable, justifying the strike out of all claims. The Tribunal correctly applied Regulation 15 and considered proportionality under Article 6 ECHR.

Citation
[2003] UKEAT 0390_03_1709
Parties
Appellant: Mr Peter Metanie; Respondent: Pertemps; Respondent: Second Respondent
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
17 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Preliminary Hearing
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Procedural Fairness, Delay, Vexatious Litigation, Scandalous Conduct, Unreasonable Conduct, Article 6 ECHR
Employment Law Strike Out Applications Procedural Fairness Delay Vexatious Litigation Scandalous Conduct Unreasonable Conduct Article 6 ECHR

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Peter Metanie

Appellant

Pertemps

Respondent

Second Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Preliminary Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in striking out the applicant's claims under Regulation 15(2)(d)-(e)
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's conduct amounted to inordinate and inexcusable delay
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's conduct was vexatious, scandalous, or unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's conduct was inordinate, inexcusable, vexatious, scandalous, and unreasonable, justifying the strike out of all claims. The Tribunal correctly applied Regulation 15 and considered proportionality under Article 6 ECHR.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • All outstanding claims struck out
  • No further hearing on the merits