27 March 2012 #Employment
In Segor v Goodrich Actuation Systems the EAT considered how a tribunal must approach the scenario where a party seems to be seeking to withdraw, abandon or concede part of their case. The EAT has concluded that this must be considered very carefully.
In Segor, the Tribunal did not determine part of the Claimant`s discrimination complaint because it considered that the Claimant`s lay representative (a non-practising barrister) had abandoned a claim that to apply a foreign requirement not to employ persons of her race was discriminatory, in order to focus on a claim that the employer had more generally discriminated against her because of her race and sex.
The Claimant appealed against the non-determination of part of the original complaint and this was allowed. The EAT held that where part of a claim appears to have been withdrawn, the Tribunal will need to be absolutely sure as a matter of principle that there has been "a clear, unequivocal and unambiguous" concession or withdrawal.
The EAT also noted that care will particularly need to be taken where a is litigant is self represented or has a lay representative because it may be a significant matter or point that they want to abandon.
Where claims are withdrawn it also a good idea to apply for the claim to be dismissed and agree in settlement wording that the Claimant will not object to any dismissal application.