EAT Jurisdictional Points – Extension of time: just and equitable
Sex Discrimination – Indirect
>Unfair Dismissal – Constructive dismissal
The Appellant claimed constructive unfair dismissal and race and sex discrimination. At a PHR the Tribunal struck out the race discrimination claim on the basis that it was not just and equitable to extend time and ordered payment of andpound;300 deposit on each of the other 2 claims. On appeal, held:
1) as to race discrimination the Tribunal erred in law (a) in considering only one of the complaints made by the Appellant some of which arose later than the complaint on which the Tribunal focussed (b) in failing to consider the issue of prejudice and whether a fair trial would be had despite the delay.
2) as to sex discrimination the Tribunal had failed to understand that the claim was one of indirect discrimination off the true nature of the claim, based as it was on a length of service requirement before an employee could be considered for promotion or a change of post. It could not reasonably be concluded that there was little reasonable prospect of success.
3) as to constructive dismissal the Tribunal had erred in law in regarding as decisive that the last straw was not a breach of contract and in concluding that it was not such a breach.
As to 2) and 3) the Tribunal’s decision was set aside; no deposit was required. As to 1) issue of extension of time remitted to a fresh Tribunal.
Citations:
[2008] UKEAT 0451 – 07 – 2805
Links:
Citing:
Cited – London Borough of Waltham Forest v Omilaju CA 11-Nov-2004
Final Straw Act – Non-Trivial
The claimant had been involved in protracted disputes with the respondent. The respondent appealed a finding of constructive dismissal and victimisation. He had attended a tribunal hearing and the employer had refused to pay his salary whilst he was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.268113