EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT
The Claimant’s unfair dismissal, discrimination and money due claims were all dismissed at a Pre-Hearing Review. The ET1 was 1 day late. The Claimant was too ill to run the proceedings or to attend the hearing. The claim was instituted and run by his father-in-law, who appeared on his behalf. The Employment Judge asked whether the Claimant could give evidence and said that at such a hearing the party seeking an extension of time usually did so. She was informed of the Claimant’s absence and that the father in law had run his case for him.
Held, after extensive review of the authorities:-
1. In considering the just and equitable extension the EJ had erred in law in not considering prejudice.
2. There was also an error of law in the failure to invite the father-in -law to give evidence on the reasons for the delay. The Claimant had not contributed to the claim or the delay; in reality it was the father-in law’s evidence, if any, which could have been important on the just and equitable issue.
3. But there was no error of law in relation to the reasonable practicability issue. The facts were clear; evidence could not have made any difference.
Appeal against the decision on the reasonable practicability decision dismissed; but the appeal against the just and equitable decision allowed; that issue remitted to a fresh Tribunal.
Jeffrey Burke QC J
[2013] UKEAT 0389 – 12 – 0307
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 15 November 2021; Ref: scu.512150