Crossland v OCS Group UK Ltd & Anor
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE RIMER
- LORD JUSTICE SULLIVAN
- LORD JUSTICE KITCHIN
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Employment Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Mr Crossland's appeal against a deposit requirement in his disability discrimination claim was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, following the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal. Because Mr Crossland refused to pay the deposit, his claim was struck out. The Court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to set aside the strike-out order and held him responsible for the respondents' costs, including a £3,000 payment on account.
Judgment
Lord Justice Rimer :
Introduction
This appeal is brought by Keith Crossland, the claimant in employment proceedings, who appeared before us in person, as he has done at all stages below. The respondents are OCS Group UK Limited (‘OCS’) and British Airways Interior Engineering Limited (‘BAIE’), who were represented by Akash Nawbatt before us, although by other counsel both in the Employment Tribunal (‘the ET’) and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (‘the EAT’).
Mr Crossland brought various employment claims against the respondents. They were considered at a pre-hearing review (‘PHR’) conducted in the ET by Employment Judge Cadney, sitting alone, on 18 January 2012. The outcome of that hearing, as reflected in Judge Cadney’s judgment sent, with reasons, to the parties on 15 February 2012, was that one of Mr Crossland’s claims was dismissed upon his withdrawal of it; and no order was made on his claims against OCS under sections 44 and 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Mr Crossland also had a disability discrimination claim against OCS and BAIE under the Equality Act 2010 and the outcome of the PHR in relation to that claim was that the judge ordered him to pay a deposit of £250 as a condition of being permitted to pursue it. It is that decision that is the subject of Mr Crossland’s appeal. Mr Crossland first sought a review of the decision. In giving his reasons on 20 March 2012 for refusing a review, Judge Cadney said that he was also treating Mr Crossland’s application as one for an extension of time for paying the deposit and he extended it until 3 April 2012. Mr Crossland did not pay the deposit by then and so on 5 April 2012 the ET made an order striking out his claims against OCS and BAIE under rule 18(7)(e) of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 (which enables the striking out of a claim for non-compliance with an order).
Mr Crossland appealed to the EAT against Judge Cadney’s judgment of 15 February 2012. His appeal was heard by the President, Underhill J (as he then was), who dismissed it by an order of 17 January 2013. Mr Crossland’s appellant’s notice to this court against that order was filed on 4 February 2013. I granted Mr Crossland permission to appeal on the ground that I regarded him as having an arguable point that the ET had erred in carrying out the comparative exercise required for the purposes of the assessment of his discrimination claim.
The Equality Act 2010
S