Dr Chakrabarti, a GP, brought claims for unfair dismissal and age discrimination in March 2007 against the Castlemilk Group Practice. The practice refuted these claims, stating that Dr Chakrabarti was not unfairly dismissed because he was a partner and not an employee, and that there had been no age discrimination as he had previously agreed to retire at the age of 60.

The claim, which took into account Dr Chakrabarti’s loss of pension rights, was for over £300,000.

The tribunal commenced in October 2007, but was adjourned after a day and a half as the Castlemilk Group Practice required more time to prepare their case. A wasted costs order was made against them regarding this delay.

From October until the following June a succession of delays followed, caused by Castlemilk and, in particular, by their legal advisers.

On June 16th 2008, the employment judge presiding over the case granted Dr Chakrabarti’s application to have Castlemilk’s response struck out on the basis that they had deliberately and persistently failed to comply with orders and that their behaviour had been unreasonable and vexatious.

The Castlemilk Group Practice appealed this decision to the EAT, and their appeal was allowed.

In considering the appeal, the EAT ruled that striking out Castlemilk’s response had been a draconian measure, particularly when lesser sanctions had been available to the judge. In the view of the EAT, the employment judge moved “too far too fast” and had lost patience with the progress of the case, and while it was “understandable why it did [...] It undoubtedly erred, however, in striking out the response.”

The EAT also queried whether the employment judge had the power to order a strike out during the hearing of a case, as this typically “is a power conferred only in the context of a pre-hearing review.”

The case was remitted to a new employment tribunal for another hearing.

Technorati Tags: Employment Tribunal, Obstructive Respondant, Strike-Out