Ince Gordon Dadds LLP and others v Tunstall UKEAT/0141/19/JOJ, UKEAT/0143/19/JOJ & UKEAT/0144/19/JOJ
Appeal against the ET’s decision concerning the applicability of a statutory moratorium under the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 1986”) to other Respondents to which the moratorium would not otherwise apply. Appeal dismissed.
The Claimant was dismissed by her employer (the First or Second Respondent), and brought proceedings in the ET (against a total of 8 Respondents) claiming unfair dismissal, pregnancy-related discrimination, sex discrimination, part-time worker discrimination and disability discrimination. The First and Second Respondents went into administration, and the ET stayed proceedings under para 43(6) of Sch B1 to the IA 1986. The Claimant applied for the stay to be lifted in relation to the Third to Eighth Respondents (who were individual members of the First and/or Second Respondents), on the basis that they were not affected by the statutory moratorium, and the ET agreed. A number of the Third to Eighth Respondents appealed on the following grounds: (1) the ET erred in law in lifting the stay because, given the doctrine of res judicata, it had the effect of continuing the claims against the First and Second Respondents; (2) the ET erred in its consideration of the issue estoppel arising in these claims; (3) the ET erred in its analysis of the question of legal advice privilege; and (4) the ET erred in its approach to the question of comparative prejudice.
The EAT held that the ET had not erred, and that it had correctly reached its conclusions in exercise of its case management discretion, and not as a question of jurisdiction.
Published: 02/07/2019 18:38