EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity
JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Extension of time: just and equitable.
In a disability discrimination failure to make reasonable adjustments claim the Respondent contended that the ET1 was presented out of time. Questions of continuing act and just and equitable extension were always going to be in issue. There was no challenge to the Employment Tribunal’s (‘ET’) finding as to when the primary limitation period started to run. The ET held that part of the delay in presenting an ET1 after the expiry of that period was excusable but held that a letter under the name of the Appellant but probably written by her Trade Union representative in which she raised a complaint under the DDA marked the end of the period of excusable delay. It was not just and equitable to extend the period to the date of presentation of the ET1. It was contended on behalf of the Appellant that the ET erred in law in not drawing the parties’ attention to the fact that they were proposing to hold that the period of excusable delay ended just prior to the date of the letter. The EAT drew the parties’ attention to Stanley Cole (Wainfleet) Ltd v Sheridan [2003] ICR 297. In this case the parties made submissions on whether there should be a just and equitable extension and should have been be prepared to do so in respect of the entirety of the period of delay. The three points which Mr MacKenzie on behalf of the Appellant would have brought to the ET’s attention would have made no difference to the outcome. There was no error of law in the ET failing to draw to the parties’ attention the significance they were to attach to the letter. In any event applying Stanley Cole a failure to do so did not cause substantial prejudice. Appeal dismissed.
Judges:
Slade J
Citations:
[2011] UKEAT 0005 – 11 – 0605
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.441831