EAT provides guidance for claimants who assert they have not unequivocally withdrawn their claim (McCrory v Healthwatch Stockport Ltd)
Employment analysis: Correspondence from a claimant who was recently bereaved and concerned about the prospect of a costs order was equivocal and did not amount to a withdrawal of his claim. The dismissal judgment (which was both a judgment putting into effect the determination that there had been an effective withdrawal and also a dismissal judgment) was made in error of law as there was no unequivocal withdrawal. The EAT provided guidance on the distinction between withdrawal of a claim and dismissal of a claim, and their consequences, and the correct procedural route where the claimant wishes to assert that they have not withdrawn their claim because the communication in question was not clear, unequivocal and unambiguous.