Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>Wilson Barca LLP & Others v Shirin [2020]
Wilson Barca LLP & Others v Shirin [2020]
Published on: 24/06/2020
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Jason Elliott BL Lecturer in Law and Barrister
Jason Elliott BL Lecturer in Law and Barrister

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.

Background

The claimant was employed by the respondent as a paralegal. She had actually been called to the Bar in 2016 shortly after her 50th birthday but she had already decided to take up employment in a solicitor’s practice.  She had been in the position for six months before she resigned following a mental breakdown which the claimant stated was due to continuous bullying and harassment by the second and third respondents who were the senior partner and the senior partner’s secretary respectively.  She cited being regularly told that she was ‘stupid’, was sworn at and told that she was too old for the job.   She brought claims of harassment and discrimination to the Tribunal.

At first instance, it was held that the respondent was liable for unlawful harassment on the grounds of age and sex.  Some other claims, such as direct discrimination were dismissed.  The issue in the appeal arose at the Remedy Hearing.   At this hearing, the Respondents outlined that the Claimant’s case had been brought out of time.  This was the first time that this assertion had been made.  Indeed, the effective date of termination for the claimant was 30th June 2016 and the ET1 was not received until 10th October 2016 following unsuccessful conciliation.   The claimant did not address the Tribunal on the issue of time at the remedy hearing nor did they request for time to be extended.  However, the Tribunal held that it was just and equitable to extend time citing that it would be inequitable to deny the claimant the claim after it had already been decided. She was awarded compensation totalling £46,908.38 for, inter alia, injury to feelings and aggravated damages.

At the EAT, the respondents again asserted the time issue that had been brought up at the remedy hearing.  This was rejected.  It was held that the issues determined within the liability judgment were res judicata and that as they never attempted to overturn the liability judgment they could not seek to do so through the backdoor. Accordingly, there was no requirement for the claimant to make an application to extend time and in any event the EAT would have allowed for the extension of time on the facts.

The respondent also appealed the level of compensation awarded.  This was successful with the EAT citing that there had been a failure by the Tribunal to outline injury to feelings was assessed at £10,000 for each incident and also the requirement for £5,000 for aggravated damages.   There needed to be an assessment of the extent the ‘aggravating conduct’ aggravated the injury as noted in HM Prison Service v Salmon.  Accordingly, the remedy was set aside with the case remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

Practical Lessons

The primary lesson that comes from this decision is for respondents to be on top of the time limits and assert it from the outset.   It is astonishing that the respondents in this case were a legal firm and the time limit issue was not raised until the hearing had been and gone.    There may have been a different result but once the liability issue had been addressed it made it much easier for Tribunal to state that they would be compelled to extend time (even though they did not need to delve into those points). 
https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/wilson-barca-llp-and-others-v-ms-m-shirin-ukeat-0276-19-ba

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

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

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 24/06/2020