Szucs v Greensquare: EAT upholds abuse of process ruling under Henderson principle

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has delivered a significant ruling in Andras Szucs v Greensquare Accord Ltd, reinforcing the application of the Henderson v Henderson principle in employment litigation. The decision underscores the procedural obligations placed upon claimants to present comprehensive cases within a single proceeding.

Case background

Szucs was employed by Greensquare Accord Ltd from May 2018 until his dismissal in April 2020. Following his termination, he initiated two separate claims: the first in August 2020 concerning his dismissal, and the second in September 2022 relating to unsuccessful job applications made to the same employer.

The Employment Tribunal struck out the second claim as an abuse of process under Henderson v Henderson, which requires parties to raise all claims arising from the same factual matrix in one proceeding. The EAT was subsequently asked to consider whether this decision was correct.

Tribunal analysis

The Employment Tribunal found that Szucs had been aware of the facts underpinning his second claim well before the final hearing of his first claim. Crucially, the tribunal determined that Szucs could have sought to amend his first claim to incorporate the allegations that later formed the basis of his second claim.

The judgement emphasised that Szucs' failure to consolidate his claims deprived the tribunal of the opportunity to adjudicate upon the entirety of his grievances in a single hearing. This approach aligns with the fundamental Henderson principle that parties should not advance claims in separate proceedings when they could reasonably have been brought together initially.

Appeal arguments rejected

During the appeal, Szucs advanced several arguments seeking to overturn the tribunal's decision. He attempted to postpone the appeal on medical grounds and contended that any application to amend his first claim would have been futile given the proximity of the hearing date.

The EAT rejected these submissions, holding that the mere possibility of an amendment application being refused did not excuse Szucs from making such an application. The tribunal noted the absence of essential medical evidence to substantiate his health-related assertions at the relevant time, which significantly undermined his position.

The EAT concluded that these factors collectively demonstrated that Szucs had deprived the tribunal of the opportunity to consider the merits of all his claims, thereby constituting an abuse of process.

Legal implications

The EAT's decision reaffirms the strict application of procedural requirements in employment litigation. The ruling demonstrates that claimants bear a significant responsibility to ensure comprehensive case presentation during initial proceedings, rather than pursuing piecemeal litigation.

The judgement serves as a reminder that the Henderson principle operates not merely as a technical rule but as a fundamental aspect of procedural justice. It reflects the court's commitment to balancing individual litigation rights against the public interest in achieving finality and preventing the wasteful use of judicial resources.

The decision particularly emphasises that procedural diligence cannot be excused by speculative concerns about the likelihood of success of procedural applications. Claimants must actively pursue available procedural remedies rather than assume their futility.

This ruling reinforces established precedent whilst providing practical guidance on the courts' approach to claims that could and should have been consolidated. It demonstrates the continuing judicial commitment to preventing repetitive litigation whilst maintaining procedural fairness within the employment tribunal system.