Jason Elliott was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 2013 and is the Associate Head of School of Law at Ulster University. Â 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. Â 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.
The claimant brought a series of claims against the respondent. She had been dismissed and subsequently brought claims for unfair dismissal, age discrimination, harassment and victimisation. The issue for the EAT here was in relation to Tribunal procedure leading to a strike out.Â
The claimant instructed a firm of solicitors who submitted the claim on the claimant’s behalf. The Employment Tribunal sent all correspondence relating to the case to the solicitor and not to the claimant. The correspondence was not acted upon leading to the case being struck out on the grounds of non-compliance with existing orders and that the claimant was not actively pursuing the claim.
The Employment Tribunal, on reconsideration of the decision to strike out the claim, upheld its decision. It did not matter that the fault lay with the claimant’s representatives rather than the claimant herself.  The Tribunal as well as the EAT both outlined that the claimant had a remedy against the representative. Indeed, the action to be made against the representative would be easier to make considering the strong findings that had been made against the representative and the wasted costs order made personally against the representative which was not subject to the appeal.  The EAT stated that the overall interests of justice had to be considered and that also includes the interests of the respondent which had prepared for two full hearings and there had to be finality of litigation. As a result, the claimant’s case remained struck out.
Practical Lessons:
This case serves as a reminder to legal representatives to ensure that they engage with the cases which they have carriage of.  In this situation, it was responding to orders being made by the Tribunal but it can also apply to the issue of time limits which legal representatives need to be cognisant of. Failure to do so can lead to claims being taken against the representatives as strongly encouraged by the Tribunal/EAT here but can also lead to wasted costs orders being made against the representatives.
https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/mrs-lynn-phipps-v-priory-education-services-ltd-2022-eat-129
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
