Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
High Court personal injuries proceedings should not have been struck out in limine where EAT proceedings had been decided
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal allows appeal from High Court and sets aside order striking out personal injuries proceedings as an abuse of process in limine, which arose after a retired engineer pursued proceedings before the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the High Court, finding that: (a) the relevant legislation barred complementary claims for discrimination before the Tribunal and at common law in respect of claims based on failure to comply with an equal remuneration term or an equality clause, but did not bar subsequent personal injuries claims per se where an earlier discrimination claim before the Tribunal had failed; (b) the plaintiff could not have combined a common law claim for personal injuries along with the statutory claim for discrimination in the one set of proceedings; and (c) it would also be open to the court of trial to determine that the personal injuries claim – or, at least, parts of the claim – should fail on the ground that it amounted in substance to a collateral attack on the decision of the Equality Tribunal.
Practice and procedure – High Court striking out of personal injuries proceedings as an abuse of process – res judicata – amicus curiae – multiplicity of litigation – estoppel per rem judicatam – abuse of process – whether a complaint of discrimination in the workplace before the Equality Tribunal bars a common law remedy for personal injuries – whether the matters before the Tribunal were the same as those being pursued in the High Court proceedings and that the plaintiff was precluded from pursuing both claims – interaction of the relevant statutory provisions (namely ss. 77 and 101 of the Employment Equality Act 1998) with standard legal principles such as res judicata and the rule in Henderson v. Henderson – plaintiff could not have combined a common law claim for personal injuries along with the statutory claim for discrimination in the one set of proceedings – Ryan, “Parallel Proceedings in Employment Law: An Analysis of the High Court Judgments in Cunningham and Culkin” (2015) 38 Dublin University Law Journal 219, 224 – not possible for the plaintiff to have brought forward his “whole case” before the Tribunal – interpretative principle of noscitur a sociis (“known by its companions”) – s. 101 serves to bar complementary claims for discrimination before the Tribunal and at common law in respect of claims based on failure to comply with an equal remuneration term or an equality clause but does not bar subsequent personal injuries claims per se where an earlier discrimination claim before the Tribunal has failed – appeal allowed
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
