GFTU Emplaw Emplaw Emplaw

Ironopolis Film Co Ltd & Others v Fox - Rule 18 strike out does not prevent respondent taking any further part: Only Rule 9 has that effect [2009] EAT

Miss Fox brought two claims of sex discrimination connected with her treatment whilst pregnant. Ironopolis filed responses in the name of the company. One named Mr Stangoe as the contact, the other Mr McCarthy. There was no individual response from any of the three named respondents, and on this basis an employment judge ruled, at a case management discussion (CMD)  that they could take no further part in the proceedings. No one appeared for the respondents at subsequent CMDs or at a Pre-Hearing Review, where all responses were struck out: the three against individuals because they had never argued why they should not be, and that of Ironopolis as having no reasonable prospect of success. The decisions were upheld at review, and letters sent to all individual respondents advising that they had no right to take any further part in proceedings save for seeking a review.

The full content of this page is available to subscribers only. Please purchase a subscription if you feel this content will be of use to you.

Login or subscribe (includes subscription information) to access the full content of this page.