The claimants appealed against the strike out of their claims for damages for breach of contract on imposing changes in employment contract and conditions. The County Court had accepted the Council’s arguments on the construction and application of s.2(3) and struck out the equal pay claims saying that the expiry of time for presenting the claims to the ET was an irrelevant factor.
Held: The court rejected the proposition that equal pay claims cannot be more conveniently disposed of in the ET because, due to the expiry of the limitation period, they could only be struck out in that forum.
Slade DBE J said: ‘In my judgment the inability of the appellants to commence proceedings before an employment tribunal could be a factor affecting the convenience of the tribunal as a forum for equal pay claims or one affecting the judge’s discretionary decision to strike out such claims in the county court. Whether that factor is taken into account in determining whether the equal pay claims can be more conveniently disposed of in the employment tribunal or if such a conclusion is reached on other grounds, in deciding whether to strike out the claims, in my judgment the reasons why the proceedings had not been issued in the employment tribunal in time would be relevant to the decision under . . s.2(3) . . Claimants cannot rely on letting the limitation period for claims to an employment tribunal go by in order to ensure that their equal pay claims are heard in the courts. It cannot be said that because such claims to an employment tribunal would be out of time a judge could not decide that it would be more convenient for them to be disposed of in the employment tribunal and to strike out the claims in the county court or High Court. In my judgment applying the approach of Lord Goff in Spiliada practical justice would require the reason for not commencing employment tribunal proceedings to be taken into account. If not presenting such proceedings was reasonable, the interests of justice are likely to be served by enabling claimants to continue litigating in a forum which has jurisdiction to hear their claims. Such considerations could affect the decision as to whether the claims could be more conveniently disposed of in the employment tribunal, or, if a judge so concluded, whether discretion should be exercised to strike out the claims in the county court.’
Judges:
Slade DBE J
Citations:
[2011] EWHC 424 (QB), [2011] IRLR 473, [2011] 4 All ER 182, [2011] Eq LR 339, [2012] ICR 1
Links:
Statutes:
Citing:
Cited – Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd, The Spiliada HL 1986
Forum Non Conveniens Restated
The House reviewed the authorities on the principle of forum non conveniens and restated how to apply the principle where the defendant seeks a stay of proceedings on the ground that there is another more appropriate forum.
Held: ‘In the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Birmingham City Council v Abdulla and Others SC 24-Oct-2012
Former employees wished to argue that they had been discriminated against whilst employed by the Council. Being out of time for Employment Tribunal Proceedings, they sought to bring their cases in the ordinary courts. The Council now appealed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430292
