EAT Race Discrimination – There were three linked appeals. The Claimant alleged she had been dismissed because of her race. The Employment Tribunal dismissed this claim, and was held entitled to do so.
The Respondent appealed findings that a named employee had been party to discrimination against C. She had not been accused of this before the hearing, and had not had the opportunity to appear before the Tribunal to rebut the finding.
Held: the finding was not clearly supported by evidence or allegation and should not have been made.
Finally, the Respondent appealed against a decision by the ET at a remedy hearing to reconsider whether it should accept jurisdiction – it had held at the liability hearing that there was a continuing act, but it changed its mind at the remedy hearing. It decided to hear the Claimant as to whether it should extend time on the basis that it was just and equitable to do so. The Respondent argued it could not do so, for to do so would be to admit evidence which did not satisfy the requirement of ‘fresh evidence’ under rule 34(3)(d) so should not be admitted under rule 34(3)(c) (‘interest of justice’) if the ET was exercising a power of review – but it did not identify what, if any, power it WAS exercising.
Held: that whether it was finishing an unfinished issue arising in the proceedings as a whole whilst they were still live, or applying rule 34, the ET was entitled to do as it did and the exercise of its discretion was permissible. Appeal rejected.
Langstaff J P
 UKEAT 0450 – 13 – 1203
England and Wales
Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.526522