Lagotse v London Borough of Camden

An appeal from an Employment Tribunal or the Employment Appeal Tribunal lies only on a point of law. Where the challenged decision involves a discretionary case-management decision, appellate intervention requires an error of law, such as a decision that is plainly wrong, contrary to legal principle, or made in disregard of relevant facts or factors. A tribunal may order further particulars and, following non-compliance with that order and an adequate warning, may strike out the claim. The appellate court will not interfere merely because the claimant was unrepresented, ill, or had a potentially arguable substantive claim.

The appellant had been employed as a nursery nurse by the respondent local authority until her employment ended on health grounds. She presented complaints including unfair dismissal and discrimination. The Employment Tribunal ordered her to provide further particulars, warned her of the consequences of non-compliance, and subsequently struck out her originating application when she failed to comply.

An application to reinstate the claim was refused after a hearing at which the appellant was represented. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed her appeal at a preliminary hearing, finding no arguable point of law. She applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal, relying on illness, procedural unfairness, the absence of a hearing on the merits, and article 6 of the Human Rights Convention.

Application refused. Lord Justice Mummery held that the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success.

1. The Employment Tribunal had power to order the provision of further particulars. The particulars were materially necessary to identify the basis of the claim for both the respondent and the Tribunal.
2. The Tribunal also had a discretion to strike out the claim when the order was not obeyed, particularly after the appellant had been warned of the consequences. The fact that the appellant was unrepresented, unwell, or wished to pursue a substantive claim did not, without more, establish an error in the exercise of that discretion.
3. Appeals from the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal are confined to points of law. An appellate court will not interfere with a discretionary decision unless it was plainly wrong, contrary to legal principle, or made in disregard of relevant facts or factors.
4. The Tribunal had considered whether the striking-out order should be set aside and found no grounds for review or for concluding that the interests of justice required reopening the case. The Employment Appeal Tribunal was entitled to conclude that this disclosed no arguable point of law.

The complaints concerning fairness, illness, legal representatives, and article 6 did not demonstrate a real prospect that the proposed appeal would succeed. The application for permission to appeal was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): application for permission to appeal refused.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: appeal against the Employment Tribunal’s refusal to reopen the claim dismissed at a preliminary hearing for want of an arguable point of law.
• Employment Tribunal: originating application struck out for failure to provide ordered further particulars; later application to reinstate or review the order refused.