The claimant was employed by the respondent as a lecturer from January 2003 to 31st March 2014.  She taught a number of courses in the beauty division of the respondent.    In 2014 it was announced that there would be a restructuring of the beauty department.    Following the process, the claimant was not offered a role in the restructured department and was dismissed on 31st March 2014.   She appealed this internally and was unsuccessful.

The EAT outlined that this case had a long and somewhat unique procedural history (which was the primary issue in the appeal).    There was an unsuccessful conciliation period before the ET1 form was filed.   This was on the basis of unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal (due to whistleblowing) and race discrimination.  There was a preliminary hearing where the majority of the claimant’s claims were dismissed.   The claimant asked for a reconsideration of that judgment which was refused and alongside that (in a separate hearing) there was an ‘unless order’ in relation to complying with case management orders such as disclosure and list of issues.   There was a subsequent extension to the unless order.   This was still not complied with and the entire claim was dismissed.  There was a notice of appeal (albeit filed one day late).  The claimant relied upon medical reasons for the failure to comply with the order (there was also an intimation that her legal representative at that time had failed to ensure compliance).

Alongside this procedure and the appeal, the claimant and the respondent had gone back to conciliation that was undertaken by ACAS (GB equivalent of the Labour Relations Agency) which was successful and settled all of the causes of actions that were remaining.

In terms of the outstanding appeal that had been filed, there was an initial refusal to extend time and this was subsequently appealed by the claimant.  The EAT outlined that whilst it did have discretion to extend time it was not appropriate in this case.  The claimant was also in extraneous negotiations with her previous legal team (UK Employment Law Adviceline Ltd) in relation to the failure to comply with the case management orders with it being agreed that they would pay her £20,000 in instalments with no admission of liability.

The claimant sought to rescind the ACAS Agreements citing that her lawyer had pressured and coerced her into entering the agreements.  The claimant had actually had independent legal advice prior to entering into the ACAS agreement and for that reason the respondent did not agree to rescind the agreement.   On this basis, the EAT held that they would not allow the appeal to proceed citing that it would be ‘academic’ considering that the causes of action had already been dealt with at conciliation.  It was also noted that there was no argument of law put forward as to why the appeal should be allowed to proceed.   For this reason, the claimant’s appeal was dismissed.

Practical Lessons

This case strikes as being somewhat of a procedural nightmare.  This arose for a multitude of reasons including the failure of the legal adviser to ensure compliance with case management orders.    This snowballed into numerous appeals and parallel procedures running alongside one another.   What the case can demonstrate is the value of conciliation and the extent to which it will be upheld by the Tribunal.  The EAT was reluctant to enter into the merits of the conciliation agreement nor where they willing to set it aside for the purpose of an appeal at the Tribunal.  This should be borne in mind by parties to conciliation in that it should be treated as a finality and not something that can be appealed.
https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/ms-mina-patel-v-city-of-wolverhampton-college-ukeat-0013-20-rn