EAT Practice and Procedure : Parties – The Claimant/Appellant was a teacher at a primary school. Her contract of employment was with Respondent one’s local authority. She brought proceedings in Employment Tribunal for unfair constructive dismissal, notice pay and sex discrimination. Respondent one and the Employment Tribunal pointed out that by virtue of the Education (Modification of Enactments Relating to Employment) (England) Order 2003 the correct Respondent was the ‘interim executive board’ of the school. On the Claimant’s application an Employment Judge joined the board as Respondent two without hearing submissions from Respondent one or Respondent two.
At a subsequent PHR another Employment Judge dismissed the claims against Respondent two on the grounds they were out of time. That was an error of law: the Employment Judge should have considered whether Respondent two should have been joined as a matter of discretion; time limits were a factor in the exercise of the discretion but not decisive as a matter of jurisdiction.
The Employment Judge also dismissed the claim against the Respondent one on the basis that under the 2003 order the only proper Respondent was Respondent two; the order was complicated and the facts needed to be established, so it could not be said at this stage that Respondent one was definitely not liable by virtue of the order. Accordingly the appeal in relation to Respondent one was also allowed: Respondent one should remain a party and all matters as between it and the Claimant should be resolved following a full hearing.
Shanks HHJ
[2014] UKEAT 0530 – 13 – 0606
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.534239