Lycatel Services Ltd v Robin Schneider
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Eady |
| Subject Matter | Not landmark |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Published date | 31 May 2023 |
Judgment approved by the Court for handing down: LYCATEL SERVICES LTD v SCHNEIDER
© EAT 2023 Page 1 [2023] EAT 81
Neutral Citation Number: [2023] EAT 81
Case No: EA-2022-000849-JOJ
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Date: 26 May 2023
Before :
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE EADY DBE, PRESIDENT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
LYCATEL SERVICES LIMITED Appellant
- and –
ROBIN SCHNEIDER Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David Craig KC and Owen Lloyd (instructed by Lewis Silkin LLP) for the Appellant
Daniel Tatton Brown KC and Kieran Wilson (instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP) for the
Respondent
Hearing date: 16 May 2023
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
This judgment was handed down by the Judge remotely by circulation to the parties' representatives
by email and release to The National Archives.
The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 10:30 on 26 May 2023
Judgment approved by the Court for handing down: LYCATEL SERVICES LTD v SCHNEIDER
© EAT 2023 Page 2 [2023] EAT 81
SUMMARY
Practice and procedure – stay of Employment Tribunal proceedings pending determination of
concurrent claim before the High Court – rule 29 Schedule 1 Employment Tribunal (Constitution and
Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
The claimant brought a claim before the Employment Tribunal (“ET”) of unauthorised deductions
from wages in respect of what was said to be his bonus entitlement in the sum of £7,995,124.89. The
respondent disputed the claim and commenced High Court proceedings for negative declaratory relief
in this regard. It then applied for a stay of the ET proceedings pending determination of the High
Court claim. The ET refused that application.
On the respondent’s appeal.
Held: allowing the appeal
The ET had applied the wrong test; failing to ask in which forum would this dispute most conveniently
and appropriately be tried (Bowater plc v Charlwood [1991] ICR 798 EAT), and instead applying a
test of adequacy, wrongly seeing there to be a presumption in favour of the claim proceeding before
the ET (thus making the same error as that identified by the Court of Appeal in Carter v Credit
Change [1979] ICR 908). It had, furthermore, failed to properly engage with the complexity of the
issues raised in this claim (not least given the uncertainty of the nature of the claimant’s case), and
had wrongly characterised the respondent’s High Court claim as “perverse”. As the ET had erred in
principle, had failed to have regard to that which was relevant, and had taken into account
considerations that were irrelevant, its decision could not stand and would be set aside.
With the consent of the parties, the EAT then proceeded to determine the question of stay itself.
Having regard to the complexity of the issues raised by the claim (which potentially raised questions
of shadow directorship and/or agency), the sum involved (just short of £8 million), the technicality
of the evidence (in particular in relation to issues of quantification), and the appropriateness of the
procedures (the informality of pleadings before the ET was a factor that weighed against that forum;
whilst the respondent had agreed that its High Court claim should be subject to the ET costs regime
if this made a difference in choice of forum), it was determined that this was a matter most
To continue reading
Request your trial