Telephone Hearing v. Chamberlain [2003] UKEAT 0404_03_1911 (19 November 2003)
The Chairman correctly struck out the claim for reasonable adjustments as the facts and legal reasoning were on all fours with Bruce v Cavalier and Thompsons Solicitors, and the application of precedent was binding; the victimisation claim should proceed to a full hearing as section 55 is a free-standing cause of action.
- Citation
- [2003] UKEAT 0404_03_1911
- Parties
- Appellant: VMS Bruce; Respondent: Addleshaws
- Jurisdiction
- United Kingdom
- Judgment Date
- 19 November 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Appeal / Preliminary Hearing
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed in part, allowed in part
- Legal Topics
- Reasonable Adjustments, Victimisation, Strike Out Powers, Vexatious Litigant
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
VMS Bruce
Appellant
Addleshaws
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Preliminary Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Chairman erred in striking out claims for reasonable adjustments under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995
- 2 Whether the Chairman erred in striking out the victimisation claim
- 3 Whether sufficient reasons were given for the strike-out decision
Ratio Decidendi
The Chairman correctly struck out the claim for reasonable adjustments as the facts and legal reasoning were on all fours with Bruce v Cavalier and Thompsons Solicitors, and the application of precedent was binding; the victimisation claim should proceed to a full hearing as section 55 is a free-standing cause of action.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed in part, allowed in part
Orders
- Appeal against strike-out of reasonable adjustments claim dismissed.
- Appeal against strike-out of victimisation claim allowed to proceed to full hearing.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment