Tanase v Barchester Healthcare Limited (2023)

EAT held that a case management order issued under Rule 29 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, cannot be treated as an unless order under Rule 38, thereby allowing the Tribunal to strike out the claim on the basis of non-compliance, which the ET proceeded to do in this case. The ET had issued a strike out warning under Rule 37, but the Claimant had exercised their right to an oral hearing in relation to the same under Rule 37(2). No such hearing took place prior to strike out. Accordingly, the EAT held the ET to have been "procedurally incompetent", set aside the strike out Judgment, and remitted the case back to the ET