Wilson Barca Llp and Another v Shirin (Jurisdictional and Time Points; Harassment): EAT 11 Jun 2020

JURISDICTIONAL AND TIME POINTS; HARASSMENT
In a reserved judgment on liability, the Employment Tribunal upheld four allegations of harassment on the ground of the Claimant’s age, and two allegations of harassment on the ground of her sex. Ten months later, on the first day of the remedy hearing, the Respondents contended for the first time that all six of the upheld allegations had been brought outside the statutory time limit. Although the Claimant did not respond to this point by making an application to extend time, in its reserved judgment on remedy the Employment Tribunal decided that it was just and equitable to extend time. It awarded the Claimant pounds 20,000 for injury to her feelings under the Vento guidelines before making adjustments for inflation, the Simmons v Castle uplift and interest. It also awarded pounds 5,000 aggravated damages in respect of the harassment on the ground of sex.
On appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected the Respondents’ challenge to the remedy judgment on the time issue, holding that this was based on the erroneous premise that the Claimant ought to have made an application to extend time once the Respondents had raised the issue at the remedy hearing. The issues determined by the liability judgment were res judicata; the Respondents had never attempted to overturn the liability judgment. It was not, therefore, necessary for the Claimant to make an application for an extension of time as the Respondents contended. In any event, the Employment Appeal Tribunal would have upheld the Employment Tribunal’s decision to extend time in these circumstances, had it been necessary to do so.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal also rejected the Respondents’ arguments that the Employment Tribunal had been wrong in principle to make awards of compensation for injury to feelings and of aggravated damages. However, it upheld the appeal against the amount of compensation awarded. The Employment Tribunal’s reasoning was either internally inconsistent or was insufficient to explain the Tribunal’s reasons for the amount of the award. The assessment of compensation was remitted to the same panel of the Employment Tribunal for redetermination.

Citations:

[2020] UKEAT 0276 – 19 – 1106

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.651615