Rojha V Zinc Media Group Plc [2023] EAT 39

Appeal against unless and costs orders where the claimant had failed to attend two case management hearings.

The claimant made multiple claims following termination of her employment including race and sex discrimination and unauthorised deductions. She failed to attend a preliminary hearing that resulted in directions for further particulars for her claims. The judge also made a deposit order for her claim of sex and/or pregnancy and maternity discrimination. The claimant did not comply with those directions and did not pay the deposit. At a second hearing, which again the claimant failed to attend, the ET made an unless order stating that non-compliance would result in the striking out of the claimant’s case in its entirety.

In this judgment, the President of the EAT, Eady J, dismisses the appeals against both orders. She rejected arguments that it was not necessary to strike out all the claims as they were irrevocably linked and there was a legitimate concern that the claimant’s failure to progress the proceedings would jeopardise the trial. In the circumstances, the ET’s order was a proportionate and necessary step to ensure a fair trial in these proceedings. As for the deposit order, the ET had undertaken a reasonable attempt at identifying the sex and/or pregnancy and maternity discrimination claims (‘rolling up their sleeves’) before permissibly concluding they had little reasonable prospect of success and there was no reason for the ET to consider that any further particulars were required.

Published: 22/03/2023 08:26

Sign up for free email alerts

Email address
First name
Last name
Receive daily
Receive weekly
I agree to this site's terms and conditions