Harada Ltd (t/a Chequepoint UK) v Turner [2003] UKEAT 636_02_1703 (17 March 2003)

Harada Ltd (t/a Chequepoint UK) v Turner [2003] UKEAT 636_02_1703 (17 March 2003)

The Appellants, having raised the jurisdictional issue at the outset, were not precluded from participating in the merits hearing, and their deliberate absence did not constitute grounds for review. The Regional Chairman's refusal to review was not wrong in law, as the relevant legal principles and procedural history supported the decision.

Citation
[2003] UKEAT 636_02_1703
Parties
Appellants: Harada Ltd and others; Respondent: Mr Turner
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
17 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Review by Regional Chairman
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Wrongful Dismissal, Jurisdiction, Constructive Dismissal, Article 18 Brussels Convention, Res Judicata, Abuse of Process
Employment Law Civil Procedure European Law Unfair Dismissal Wrongful Dismissal Jurisdiction Constructive Dismissal Article 18 Brussels Convention +2 more

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

Harada Ltd and others

Appellants

Mr Turner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Review by Regional Chairman

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to review the merits decision was wrong in law
  2. 2 Whether participation in merits hearing would amount to submission to jurisdiction under Article 18 of the Brussels Convention
  3. 3 Whether the appeal constitutes a collateral attack on previous decisions

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellants, having raised the jurisdictional issue at the outset, were not precluded from participating in the merits hearing, and their deliberate absence did not constitute grounds for review. The Regional Chairman's refusal to review was not wrong in law, as the relevant legal principles and procedural history supported the decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Respondent to make submissions on costs within fourteen days; Appellants to respond within fourteen days thereafter.