In Chowdhury v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the claimant brought claims of discrimination, unfair and wrongful dismissal, and other payments owed. She was taken ill during a part-heard final hearing, following which the hearing was postponed.
The Employment Tribunal ordered her to provide medical evidence on her fitness to participate in the resumed hearing, whether she required any adjustments and, if she remained unfit, when she was likely to become fit.
The claimant did not provide the specified evidence, and the Tribunal made an unless order providing that all her remaining claims would be dismissed if she failed to comply. When the claimant failed to comply with the unless order, her claims were dismissed by the Tribunal and she appealed on two grounds: first against the making of the unless order, and second against the notice confirming dismissal.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that, before making an unless order, a tribunal must be satisfied that automatic dismissal would be a proportionate consequence of any material non-compliance. Relevant factors may include how much of the claim would be dismissed, what the party is being asked to do, how much time they have been given and whether third parties are involved, how important compliance is to a fair hearing, the party's past record of non-compliance, and whether a less drastic measure would achieve the same purpose.
The tribunal's concerns were legitimate, and...
[OSEN=Choi Lee-jung Reporter] As past remarks by singer Yang Hong-won expressing his dislike of infidelity resurface, reactions continue to grow that the recent 'motel infidelity allegations' agai...