Onea v Contingent and Future Technologies Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EAT 125 |
| Year | 2023 |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
2023 July 11
Industrial Relations - Employment tribunals - Practice - Employment tribunal refusing adjournment of unfair dismissal claim pending concurrent related High Court actions - Proper test for adjournment - Whether tribunal proceedings to be adjourned -
The claimant, along with two fellow directors and shareholders, was a co-founding employer of the respondent. The claimant resigned, asserting constructive dismissal. The following day, he was purportedly dismissed for gross misconduct. He brought a claim in the employment tribunal for detriment and automatic unfair dismissal as a result of whistleblowing, “ordinary” unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal. The employment judge refused his application for a stay of the claim pending resolution of two High Court proceedings, namely, a breach of confidence action brought against him by the respondent and an unfair prejudice petition he had filed against the other directors and the respondent. The claimant appealed arguing, inter alia, that the judge erred in his approach to the degree of overlap between the respective proceedings and in concluding that it was not in the interests of justice overall to grant a stay.
Ming-Yee Shiu (instructed by
HEATHER WILLIAMS J, allowing the appeal, said that a decision whether or not to stay proceedings was a matter of case management discretion for the employment tribunal, as provided by rule 29 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. As the exercise of a case management discretion, it was not for the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) to interfere with a tribunal’s grant or refusal of a stay simply because it disagreed with the decision. Such decisions were only challengeable where the decision-maker exercised the discretion under a mistake of law or disregard of principle, or under a misapprehension as to the facts, or took into account irrelevant matters or failed to take into account relevant matters, or where the conclusion was outside the generous ambit within which a reasonable disagreement was possible: see, for example: Noorani v Merseyside Tec Ltd [
To continue reading
Request your trial