Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>Kaul v Ministry of Justice [2023]
Kaul v Ministry of Justice [2023]
Published on: 30/03/2023
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Jason Elliott BL Lecturer in Law and Barrister
Jason Elliott BL Lecturer in Law and Barrister

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.

Background

Background:

In 2019 the claimant raised grievances about other judges and court staff.  The grievances related to events starting in 2015.   In 2020 the grievance was dismissed as being out of time under the policy.    The claimant then commenced proceedings stating that there was a failure to deal with the grievance in a reasonable time, she should not have been asked to provide a schedule listing the complaints and that they were not out of time.

Outcome:

The respondent sought to strike out the claim and in part this was allowed.  The Tribunal struck out all of the claims with the exception of the one which related to the decision not to determine the grievance on its merits.

The claimant appealed the decision to the EAT.  On the issue of delay the claimant alleged that it amounted to victimisation and disability discrimination.   The EAT stated that there had to be realistic assessment of the circumstances in determining whether there was no reasonable prospect of success. There were undisputed facts relating to the length of time it took for the grievance and the EAT found that the decision to strike this claim out was correct.

In terms of being asked to provide a schedule of complaints it was found that it was a request rather than an instruction.  The EAT agreed with this assertion and that it was entirely unexceptional to request the schedule as it would have clarified the matters complained of. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

This case relates to issues of strike out powers and when the Tribunal can exercise those.  It is clear that it is easier to make a determination as to whether there is no reasonable prospect of success when there are undisputed facts as occurred here.  That should be taken into account for respondents who are asking the Tribunal to strike out the claim being made.

https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/hhj-kalyany-kaul-kc-v-1-ministry-of-justice-2-the-lord-chancellor-3-the-lord-chief-justice-2023-eat-41

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

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

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 30/03/2023