Jason Elliott was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 2013 and is the Associate Head of School of Law at Ulster University. As a practising barrister, he has developed a largely civil practice representing individuals, companies and public bodies in litigation. This covers a wide range of areas including personal injuries, wills and employment law. In terms of employment law, he has represented both applicants and respondents in the Industrial Tribunal. At Ulster University, Jason lectures extensively on the civil areas of practise such as Equity and Trusts and delivers employment law lectures for both undergraduate and postgraduate students.
Appeal allowed when a claim was struck out for not complying with time limits. This was because the Tribunal did not show how the essential elements of the claim were known in 2018 as opposed to 2020 by the claimant.
The claimant made an application to work for the respondent bank in 2018. She had worked at a competitor – the claimant’s application was not successful after they had received some negative feedback from the claimant’s employer. The claimant then submitted claims, some relating to race, against the respondent in 2020. This was well beyond the three month time limit.
The claimant sought an extension of time for her claim. This was initially rejected by the Tribunal who held that she had sufficient information in 2018 to take the claim but did not. However, on appeal to the EAT they held that information obtained in 2020 changed the picture in relation to potential unlawful action from the respondent which would be relevant to the claim being sought.
The respondent appealed the EAT’s decision to the Court of Appeal. They held that the error from the Tribunal at first instance was that the judgment did not outline how the claimant knew of the essential elements of the claim in 2018 compared to the position in 2020. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. On the disposal they held that it should be remitted back to a newly constituted Tribunal to determine whether time should be extended considering that there was no fulsome examination in the judgment at first instance.
Claimant
Chevalier-Firescu
Respondent/Appellant
HSBC Bank Plc
The issue of when time begins, especially in the likes of a discrimination claim, can be difficult. The difficulty can arise in terms of the information held by the claimant and when they become aware of such information. This clearly arose between the decision not to appoint the claimant in 2018 and the later information coming to light in 2020. It has to be shown that the essential elements of the information allowing the claim were available and this was not clearly discussed by the Tribunal at first instance therefore allowing the appeal and the rehearing.
You can read the full case here:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2024/1550.html
Continue reading
We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.
Please log in to view the full article.
What you'll get:
- Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
- Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
- 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
- Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team
Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial
