BUQ v HRE

When parallel High Court and Employment Tribunal proceedings substantially overlap, the court may adjourn the High Court trial where the Tribunal is better placed to determine factual issues material to both proceedings. The decision is case-sensitive and requires a fair balancing of the overlapping issues, the likely assistance provided by the Tribunal’s findings, delay, costs, prejudice, and the efficient conduct of both proceedings. The court should apply the overriding objective under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. An adjournment may be appropriate where resolving the Tribunal claim first is likely to simplify or dispose of the High Court proceedings.

The claimant brought a privacy action seeking an injunction against the defendant. The defendant was also pursuing Employment Tribunal proceedings against four respondents, including the claimant, arising from the termination of his employment. The proceedings substantially overlapped, particularly concerning sexual allegations and allegations of misuse of company funds said to bear on credibility and motive.

The claimant applied to adjourn the three-day High Court trial, listed for November 2012, until after the Employment Tribunal hearing listed for March 2013. The central issue was whether the Tribunal was better placed to determine the overlapping factual issues and whether the interests of justice and efficient case management required the High Court trial to await that determination.

1. Application granted. The date fixed for trial of the privacy action was vacated. The action was directed to be relisted, if the parties did not agree otherwise, as soon as practicable after the final determination of the Employment Tribunal proceedings.
2. The court’s task was to exercise its case-management discretion in accordance with the overriding objective under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. There was no directly comparable authority because the two proceedings were unusual on their facts.
3. The issue was finely balanced. Relevant considerations included the substantial factual overlap, the risk of inconsistent or incomplete findings, delay, costs already incurred, the defendant’s wish for resolution, and the possibility that adjournment might generate further interim applications concerning the use of evidence.
4. The Employment Tribunal had to determine the financial allegations against the defendant. Those allegations were relevant to credibility and the alleged motive for the sexual allegations in the privacy proceedings. The Tribunal was therefore better placed than the High Court to determine the truth of those allegations and, consequently, the overlapping sexual allegations.
5. The court placed little weight on possible prejudice to the employer respondents because they had not themselves drawn any material disadvantage to the court’s attention. It accepted counsel’s assessment that the adjournment was unlikely to lead to an interim application before the Tribunal proceedings concluded.