A party who makes an application to strike out all or part of another party’s claim or response under Rule 37(1) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 (the ET Rules) has no right under Rule 37(2) to insist upon that application being considered at an oral hearing in public, according to the EAT.
Duvenage v NSL (UKEATS/0002/20/SS, UKEATS/0003/20/SS, UKEATS/0004/20/SS & UKEATS/0005/20/SS)
What are the practical implications of this case?
This judgment clarifies that a party making an application to strike out the other party’s pleading (in whole or part) has no right under Rule 37(2) for the determination of that application being carried out an oral hearing. It is only the party at risk of the consequences of a successful application that can insist on there being a hearing.
It should be noted, however, that even where the affected party does not make a request for an oral hearing it may, in certain circumstances, still be necessary for there to be a hearing instead of the application being considered on the basis of written submissions. For example, a tribunal may need to list a hearing if there are disputed facts about the affected party’s conduct of proceedings and it is necessary to hear evidence. A party that wants its application for strike out to be determined at an oral hearing should therefore explain in its request for an oral hearing the reasons why such a hearing is necessary or otherwise in accordance with the overriding objective to deal with cases fairly and justly.
Case details
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal
• Judge: Lord Fairley
• Date: 8 December 2020
Formed in 2017, following significant legislative changes designed to increase competition within the legal services marketplace, Pro Employment Law is a progressive set of barristers’ chambers, consisting only of experienced employment law barristers, offering a full range of specialist advisory, case management, and advocacy services directly to the public through the Public Access scheme. We supply our legal services exclusively in the area of Employment Law to clients located across England & Wales. All of the legal services we supply are covered by professional indemnity insurance with Bar Mutual.
Please contact us for a free, initial telephone consultation with a barrister.
In McMahon v AXA ICAS [2025] EAT 8, the EAT faced a number of issues on appeal around the payment due from a deduction of wages as well as a disability discrimination claim which was struck out by the employment tribunal. The respondent also cross-appealed a decision on deduction of wages, arguing that there was… >>
Where a claimant has failed to comply with the early conciliation (EC) requirement but the employment tribunal did not reject the claim under either Rule 10 or 12 of the ET Rules 2013 (now Rules 12 or 13 of the ET Rules 2024), the tribunal should not reject the claim at a later stage, eg… >>
In East Lancashire NHS Trust v Akram [2025] EAT 2, the EAT followed the approach set out by the Supreme Court in Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland v Agnew [2024] IRLR 56 on how to calculate a day’s pay for holiday pay purposes. It explained that: • a person should receive… >>