Mr P Williamson v The Bishop of London and Others
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Eady |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EAT 118 |
| Subject Matter | Not landmark |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Published date | 01 August 2022 |
Judgment approved by the Court for handing down: WILLIAMSON v BISHOP OF LONDON AND ORS
© EAT 2022 Page 1 [2022] EAT 118
Neutral Citation Number: [2022] EAT 118
Case No: EA-2020-000367-DA
IN THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Date: 1 August 2022
Before :
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE EADY DBE, PRESIDENT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
MR P WILLIAMSON
Appellant
- and –
(1) THE BISHOP OF LONDON
(2) THE LONDON DIOCESAN FUND
(3) THE CHURCH COMMISSIONERS FOR
ENGLAND
Respondents
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
James Wynne (instructed by Scott-Moncrieff & Associates Ltd, solicitors) for the Appellant
Edward Kemp and Bláthnaid Breslin (instructed by Winckworth Sherwood LLP, solicitors) for the
Respondents
Hearing date: 13 July 2022
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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 11:00 on 1 August 2022
Judgment approved by the Court for handing down: WILLIAMSON v BISHOP OF LONDON AND ORS
© EAT 2022 Page 2 [2022] EAT 118
Summary
Practice and procedure – Civil Procedure Order – section 42 Senior Courts Act 1981
The claimant is subject to a Civil Procedure Order (“CPO”), which provides that he shall not initiate
civil proceedings without the leave of the High Court. Notwithstanding that requirement, the claimant
purported to bring a claim of unlawful age discrimination before the Employment Tribunal (“ET”)
without first obtaining the required leave. When the point was raised, the claimant made an
application for retrospective permission. The Order made by the High Court (“the Pittaway Order”):
1. granted the claimant permission to pursue the existing proceedings; in the alternative, 2. granted
him permission to issue proceedings in the ET. When the matter returned to the ET, however, it was
ruled that paragraph 1. of the Pittaway Order could be of no effect as it was not possible to give
retrospective permission under the terms of a CPO, and the proceedings in the ET were a nullity (the
ET following the High Court decision in HM Attorney General v Edwards [2015] EWHC 1653
Admin). The ET further considered that paragraph 2 of the Pittaway Order was expressed in the
alternative, and related to the same basis of claim. The claimant appealed.
Held: dismissing the appeal
The ET had correctly ruled that the proceedings before it were a nullity; section 42(1A) Senior
Courts Act 1981 imposed a substantive (not merely a procedural) barrier to the initiation of
proceedings by the subject of a CPO. Although not strictly binding on the EAT, the decision in AG
v Edwards was of persuasive authority and none of the exceptions identified in Lock and anor v
British Gas Trading Ltd (No. 2) [2016] IRLR 316 EAT applied. In particular, contrary to the
claimant’s submissions, AG v Edwards had not been decided per incuriam, was not manifestly
wrong, and no exceptional circumstances applied. In any event, the decision in AG v Edwards was
consistent with the statutory language and the purpose of section 42(1A). As for the Pittaway Order
(although strictly academic given the decision reached on the approach to section 42(1A)), the ET
Judgment approved by the Court for handing down: WILLIAMSON v BISHOP OF LONDON AND ORS
© EAT 2022 Page 3 [2022] EAT 118
had rightly construed the two paragraphs as being alternatives; that was apparent from the context of
the application under consideration and from the language used.
To continue reading
Request your trial