EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: Extension of time: reasonably practicable
The Claimant, a serving police officer had been granted anonymity at the Stockwell Tube inquest. He subsequently raised PIDA detriments in an in-time claim form, but on advice did not disclose his name or address, giving his Police Federation representative’s. The claim was not accepted by the Secretary and the Regional Employment Judge for want of those details. At a PHR to determine whether a new claim was in time, the Employment Judge decided it was. On appeal by the Commissioner, it was agreed that if the Employment Judge were wrong on being precluded from considering whether the original claim was in time by Rule 3(9), the claim would be in time.
Held: Rule 3(9) did not so constrain the Employment Judge. Since her view was clear, there would be no change if this point were remitted to her, the Judgment was unarguably correct. and it was not necessary to consider the other grounds of appeal.
Judges:
McMullen QC J
Citations:
[2010] UKEAT 0126 – 10 – 0604
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.408652
