CA-2025-000379 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1357

Fecha: 27-Oct-2025

PARAS. 39-40: DISMISSAL/STRIKING-OUT AS CASE MANAGEMENT

69.

Having thus rejected the argument that he was absolutely obliged to strike out the detriment claim for want of jurisdiction, at paras. 39-40 Swift J considers whether he should nevertheless strike it out for non-compliance. He begins by saying that Mr Baker accepted that if he did not succeed on the jurisdiction issue he could not succeed on any other basis. But he goes on to explain why he believed that that concession was rightly made. His reasons can be summarised as follows:

(1)

The operative cause of the situation in which the ET (and thus also the EAT) now found themselves was the ET’s failure to reject the claim. As he puts it in para. 39:

“Had that mistake not happened, had the error been brought to Ms Reynolds’ attention, there is no reason to think that the required certificate would not have been obtained.”

(2)

The Claimant’s original error in not invoking the early conciliation process was “explicable if not entirely excusable”. In order to apply for interim relief, she had to present her claim within seven days of her dismissal; the facts of the unfair dismissal and detriment claims were “entirely connected”; and in order to meet the seven-day time limit for the one and obtain an ECC for the other pre-presentation she would have had to present two separate complaints.

(3)

There was no real prejudice to the Appellants.

(4)

The conduct of Ms Hayward and Mr Court in relation to the interim relief application had been found by Judge Crosfill to be reprehensible.

70.

This part of Swift J’s judgment is not relevant to the issues on the appeal, which are concerned only with the question whether section 18A goes to jurisdiction. But I have summarised it because there is some parallel with the similar exercise undertaken by Judge Crosfill in the ET which is the subject of the cross-appeal.