Jason Elliott was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 2013 and is the Associate Head of School of Law at Ulster University. As a practising barrister, he has developed a largely civil practice representing individuals, companies and public bodies in litigation. This covers a wide range of areas including personal injuries, wills and employment law. In terms of employment law, he has represented both applicants and respondents in the Industrial Tribunal. At Ulster University, Jason lectures extensively on the civil areas of practise such as Equity and Trusts and delivers employment law lectures for both undergraduate and postgraduate students.
M Griffiths
Scarista Limited
KKR Private Credit Opportunities Partners LP
Alcentra Limited
Tribunal had erred procedurally when continuing to write a judgment treating the claims as live even though they had been withdrawn following settlement.
The background of this case, at the EAT, relates to the procedure adopted by the Employment Tribunal. In December 2022 the Employment Judge struck out the claims against the second and third respondent with full reasons and then refused a reconsideration of that request. However, a day before the judgment was sent out to the parties the claimant had written to the Tribunal, with the respondents copied in, that the claims were to be withdrawn because of a settlement reached by the parties. This had come about because the Employment Tribunal Judge had decided to reserve judgment to allow time for a settlement. The understanding of the claimant was that if a settlement had been reached, and the claims were withdrawn that the judgment would not get published.
Bearing in mind that the claims were struck out via judgment the claimant appealed that considering the withdrawal and settlement.
The EAT held that the Employment Judge had erred. The Judge had stated that there would be a judgment on a specific date (in December 2022) insofar as there was no settlement between the parties prior to that date. There was that settlement. Therefore, the Tribunal had erred procedurally in not treating the claims as being withdrawn and dismissing them on that basis. The Judge had continued to treat the claims as live rather than having been ended. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for it to be reconsidered and the refusal of that was an error.
An odd case relating to procedure but one which the Tribunal should take heed of. Where time is given for a settlement and then a judgment is given despite that settlement and withdrawal of the claim – then that judgment is procedurally in error.
You can read the case in full here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67daa8c891e6e04923028404/Mrs_M_Griffiths_v__1__Scarista_Ltd__2__KKR_Private_Credit_Opportunities_Partners_LP__3__Alcentra_Ltd__2025__EAT_36.pdf
Continue reading
We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.
Please log in to view the full article.
What you'll get:
- Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
- Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
- 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
- Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team
Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial
