No, held the EAT in Drake International Systems Ltd and Others v Blue Arrow Ltd.
Having commenced proceedings, the Claimant (a transferee seeking to claim against a transferor) sought to amend the claim to add four subsidiary companies as Respondents.
Upholding the decision to allow the amendment, Langstaff P held that a claim had been properly instituted. The subsequent decision to allow the addition of a Respondent was a case management decision in which the employment tribunal has a discretion to be exercised in accordance with the longstanding principles set out inSelkent Bus Co v Moore  ICR 836.
The case is worth a read as Langstaff P sets out a number of policy considerations underlying the Early Conciliation regime. He concludes by noting that a "happy consequence" of his reasoning is that satellite litigation (as occurred under the now repealed dispute resolution procedures) could be avoided.
Post a Comment