Party making application for strike out has no right to insist on oral hearing (Duvenage v NSL)

A party who makes an application to strike out all or part of another party’s claim or response under Rule 37(1) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 (the ET Rules) has no right under Rule 37(2) to insist upon that application being considered at an oral hearing in public, according to the EAT.

Duvenage v NSL (UKEATS/0002/20/SS, UKEATS/0003/20/SS, UKEATS/0004/20/SS & UKEATS/0005/20/SS)

What are the practical implications of this case?

This judgment clarifies that a party making an application to strike out the other party’s pleading (in whole or part) has no right under Rule 37(2) for the determination of that application being carried out an oral hearing. It is only the party at risk of the consequences of a successful application that can insist on there being a hearing.

It should be noted, however, that even where the affected party does not make a request for an oral hearing it may, in certain circumstances, still be necessary for there to be a hearing instead of the application being considered on the basis of written submissions. For example, a tribunal may need to list a hearing if there are disputed facts about the affected party’s conduct of proceedings and it is necessary to hear evidence. A party that wants its application for strike out to be determined at an oral hearing should therefore explain in its request for an oral hearing the reasons why such a hearing is necessary or otherwise in accordance with the overriding objective to deal with cases fairly and justly.

Case details

• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal
• Judge: Lord Fairley
• Date: 8 December 2020

Contact Us

Please contact us for a free, initial telephone consultation with a barrister.

020 7459 4619

    Contact Us





    Latest News

    FCA issues policy statement with guidance on non-financial misconduct

    The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has published Policy statement PS25/23: Tackling non‑financial misconduct in financial services, following amendment of the Code of Conduct (COCON) and the Fit and Proper test for Employees and Senior Personnel (FIT) sourcebooks. The policy statement contains final guidance on serious non-financial misconduct (NFM) in the financial services sector, and aims… >>

    19 December 2025

    Employment Tribunals launch 18 explainer videos for unrepresented parties

    The President of Employment Tribunals (England & Wales), Judge Barry Clarke, has announced the launch of 18 explainer videos on YouTube aimed at improving access to justice by clarifying tribunal procedures and complex employment law for unrepresented parties. The initiative also seeks to help litigants present focused claims and responses, reducing case management time. This… >>

    12 December 2025

    Non-binary NHS worker loses claim over misgendering

    In Lockwood v Cheshire and Wirral NHS Foundation Trust (ET case numbers: 2401211/2024, 2407178/2024), an employment tribunal has rejected a non-binary National Health Service (NHS) worker’s complaint over repeated misgendering at work, ruling that protections under equality laws did not apply. Judge Nicky Benson ruled that Haech Lockwood, a Cheshire and Wirral NHS Foundation Trust… >>

    5 December 2025