BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Riniker v City and Islington College Corp [2012] EWCA Civ 21 (27 January 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/21.html Cite as: [2012] EWCA Civ 21 |
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
ON APPEAL FROM THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
HIS HONOUR JUDGE RICHARDSON
UKEAT/0495/08/CEA, BAILII: [2010] UKEAT 0495_08_2306
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
URSULA RINIKER |
Appellant |
|
- and - |
||
CITY AND ISLINGTON COLLEGE CORPORATION |
Respondent |
____________________
The Respondent Not Attending
Hearing date : 20 October 2011
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Elias :
(1) Under paragraph 1, the respondent was to disclose a contract of employment and relevant pay scale for a full time male lecturer in the Languages Department by 28 March 2008.
(2) By paragraph 2. the appellant was to provide the respondent with a schedule of loss stemming from the dismissal by 4 April 2008, and following the disclosure Order at paragraph 1, the alleged loss stemming from the breach of the Equal Pay Act.
(3) Under paragraph 3. each party was to prepare and serve a List of Documents relevant to the issues which they intended to rely upon at the full hearing by 18 April 2008, and
(4) by paragraph 7.2 witness statements were to be mutually exchanged by 13 June 2008.
"Notice under Rule 10(8) and/or 13 and/or 19, Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2004 of an Order made by an employment judge under rule 10(2) and/or 13 and/or 18.
On the initiative of Judge Postle the following Order has been made. Under rule 12(2) any part affected by the Order may apply to have it varied or revoked. Such an application must be made before the date ordered for compliance in writing to this office and must include reasons for the application. A party who is legally represented is required by rule 11(4) to provide all the other parties in writing with the information there set out.
Order. So as to arrive on or before midday on 18 June 2008 the claimant is to comply with paragraph (1), (2) and (7.2) of the Tribunal's Order dated 11 March 2008.
Consequences of non-compliance.
And take notice that unless this Order is complied with the claim will be struck out without further consideration of the proceedings or the giving of further notice or the holding of any hearing."
"The Tribunal - having made an Order requiring the claimant to provide certain information by midday 18 June 2008 – which Order contained a warning that in the event that the information was not supplied the claim would be struck out without further consideration of the proceedings or the giving of further notice or the holding of any hearing, and – noting that the specified date has passed without compliance with the Order or any request for an extension of time, now records that the claim has been struck out."
(1) the Order of His Honour Judge Richardson dated 23 June 2010.
(2) the Order of His Honour Judge Reid dated 16 June 2010 concerning the amendment to the review Order.
(3) the Order of His Honour Judge Peter Clark dated 4 March 2010 when he dismissed the appeal against the Registrar's decision that the appeal challenging the review decision was out of time, and
(4) the Order of His Honour Judge Peter Clark dated 14 April 2010 when he refused the application made by the applicant for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
The decision of HH Judge Richardson.
The grounds of appeal.