||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 477 (Jul)
||Employment Appeal Tribunal
Judge Peter Clark
||Nicholas Dugdale (instructed by Abbott Lloyd Howorth, Maidenhead) for the employee.
||The employer appeared by its representative.
||29 July 2005
Employment tribunal - Procedure - Review of tribunal's decision - Decision to strike out complaint for non-compliance with order to pay deposit - Whether decision amenable to review as 'judgment' - Whether order to pay deposit amenable to variation - Whether administrative error including error by employee - Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004, SI 2004/1861, Sch 1, rr 20(1), 20(4), 28(1), 34(1)(b), 34(3)(a).
Although a deposit order under r20(1) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure in Sch1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 was not a judgment for the purposes of r28(1)(a) and not subject to review, an order under r20(4) to strike-out a complaint for failure to comply with that order was such a judgment and was subject to review. However, a deposit order could nevertheless be the subject of revocation or variation under the power to make case management orders in r10 of those Rules. Finally, the employee's failure to specify the correct postcode in his solicitor's address amounted to an 'administrative error' for the purposes of r34(3)(a). Administrative errors by the parties, as well as the tribunal staff (but not the chairman) came within the scope of that provision.
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary