Unless orders in the EAT
In Mohammed v Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust  EAT 16 and Rojha v Zinc Media Group PLC  EAT 39, the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered appeals concerning the circumstances in which an unless order could be made which applied to an entire claim, in circumstances where the Claimant had failed to comply with orders to provide further information in respect of only some of those claims.
The EAT in Mohammed allowed the Claimant’s appeal, finding that the unless order in that claim had been made without proper consideration of whether that order was a proportionate response to the Claimant’s default. The requests for information did not relate to some of the Claimant’s claims, which could therefore have proceeded.
In Rojha, the Claimant’s appeal was dismissed as the information which the Claimant had been ordered to provide was relevant to all the claims she had brought. The Claimant’s conduct of proceedings was also held to be a relevant factor in making the order. The EAT also dismissed a further appeal against a deposit order made before the claim had been struck out.
Alice Mayhew KC, instructed by Advocate, appeared for the successful Claimant in Mohammed and Sam Way, instructed by Niki Walker Employment Law, appeared for the successful Respondent in Rojha.Back to News
Areas of expertise
- Administrative and Public Law
- Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
- Clinical Negligence
- Commercial Litigation and Disputes
- Health & Safety
- Human Rights
- Insurance & Reinsurance
- Personal Injury
- Professional Negligence
- Regulatory & Professional Discipline
- Sports Law
- Telecommunications & IT