1/ SoS Justice v Johnson: EAT holds that in considering whether just & equitable to extend time, it's relevant to take account of the lengthy delay of the trial post-presentation of the ET1 (here due to a stay pending a PI claim)
2/ J was a prison officer unfortunate enough to attend the scene of a brutal murder, including mutilation & disembowelment. He suffered psychiatric injury as a result. He was compelled to complete an ill-health retirement assessment when he didn't want to medically retire.
3/ J brought an ET claim in 2013, stayed pending determination of his PH claim. That took some years but in 2020 his ET claim was finally heard & he won on 1 ground of harassment re the compulsion to complete the assessment.
4/ The compulsion had been on 20.2.13, whilst J's claim had been presented on 19.12.13. The ET had found time started to run re the compulsion in Sept 2013. The SoS asserted the ET erred in doing so without any findings of continuous conduct running to that date.
5/ The SoS also appealed against the ET holding the delay to be a few weeks at most, whereas it was around 7 months & that it also erred in considering the 6-7 years between bringing the ET claim & trial as irrelevant to whether it was just & equitable to extend time.
6/ The EAT noted relied on Morgan & Adedeji as providing the approach to time under the EqA, including the relevance of extending time to the bringing into the claim of historic acts. It also noted that ETs are discouraged from focusing on the Keeble factors.
7/ The EAT allowed the appeal on both grounds. The ET failed to make findings to show continuing conduct amounting to harassment after the initial compulsion. It also was wrong to discount as relevant to extension the periods outside of the length of delay in presenting the ET1.
8/ Hence on the extension ground, it was relevant for the ET to consider as a factor that the ET was being called now (due to the stay) to determine out of time allegations which occurred many years ago, irrespective of the fact that the ET1 wasn't many years delayed.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ Parr v Moore Stephens: CA finds exercise of a discretion to de-equitise a partner on reaching normal retirement age a 1-off act rather than continuing conduct.
2/ Mr Parr was a longstanding equity partner at MS accountancy firm. The firm's LLP Members' Agreement set a normal retirement date of the accounts date following a 60th birthday and then set out what followed from reaching that milestone.
3/ In basic terms, the whilst cl29.2 set a normal retirement date, cl29.4 allowed for discretion to extend membership of the LLP for a specified period on a valid business case being presented, & also discretion to employ the member instead of continuing as a LLP member.
1/ 🚨Eckland v Chief Constable Avon & Somerset: CA holds police officers wanting to claim discrimination against misconduct panels can bring the claim in the ET against the Chief Constable.
Comments on equivalence of particular interest. bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/… #ukemplaw
2/ PC Eckland had given false evidence in a criminal trial & was subject to misconduct proceedings as a result. The panel decided to dismiss him. PC Eckland claimed his false evidence resulted from mental impairment & the dismissal was s.15 discrimination arising from disability.
3/ He brought a claim in the ET against his Chief Constable. The question was whether the Chief was an appropriate respondent & whether the ET was the correct venue.
1/ Wells Cathedral School v Souter: EAT makes clear it's open to an EJ to extend time for an EqA claim where the claimant waited for an internal grievance to be heard, & is open for an EJ to decide the other way. It's a matter of weighing up the relevant factors. #ukemplaw
2/ Claims of constructive unfair dismissal & disability discrim were made by a husband & wife (with the husband's disability claim being an associative one). An SAR uncovered emails said by the Cs to show plans to undermine them & to remove them from the school.
3/ They both raised grievances reliant in part on those emails & resigned following determination of those grievances. They brought their claims in time as against their grievances/resignations but not as against any of the alleged EqA breaches or from seeing the emails.
Khan & Uzayr v BP: ET erred in refusing to postpone a 3-week case with 48 witnesses due to happen a few days later when 1 of K&U's counsel team had a medical emergency & was told that he shouldn't carry out any work until the following month. bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT… #ukemplaw
2/ On reconsideration, whilst the ET declined to postpone, it sought to set case management directions to start the evidence a day after counsel would be medically fit to work again. The EAT agreed that was unfair in a case of this complexity, where 2 weeks' prep was needed.
3/ The EJ was also criticised for relying on the lack of medical evidence in refusing the urgent application for postponement notwithstanding that (a) the medical position wasn't disputed, & (b) it was provided by the unwell counsel & his solicitors as officers of the court.
1/ Francis v Ford: An EAT decision about whether to admit background evidence is a case management decision & hence subject to limited review on appeal. A deposit order re extension of EqA time limits shouldn't be made without evidence. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/61c303b1… #ukemplaw
2/ The case concerned various race discrim allegations from 2019-2020, in respect of which the C sought also to rely on historic matters from 2009-2018 as background material to establish a culture of racism. At a CMH, the ET ordered the background matters be omitted.
3/ The ET's reasons focused on relevance & their historic nature & hence overriding objective matters relating to the length of trial & difficulties for the R in preparing evidence for trial on such historic matters.
1/ Piepenbrock v LSE: EAT rejects amendment appeal to bring heavily out of time amendments re matters happening 8 years earlier, finding EJ erred as to whether P had already brought claims re the amended matters, but the error wasn't material. bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT… #ukemplaw
2/ P was a renowned economist and academic at LSE, suffering depression & anxiety & recently diagnosed on the with autism spectrum disorder. When he was on a lecture tour in the US, an accompanying student made sexual harassment allegations against him, which P said were false.
3/ This was in 2012. P went on long-term sick leave & when his fixed term contract ended in 2014 it wasn't renewed. A year earlier, the allegations were found not proven.
In 2015, P brought ET claims for unfair dismissal, victimisation & discrimination arising from disability.