Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Fair Employment Tribunal Northern Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Fair Employment Tribunal Northern Ireland Decisions >> White v Peugeot [2003] NIFET 546_01 (4 April 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIFET/2003/546_01.html
Cite as: [2003] NIFET 546_01, [2003] NIFET 546_1
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
- The net issue in this case was whether by relying on solicitor's advice and actions the applicant's originating application which was, as an agreed fact, presented outside the time limit could still be considered for a full hearing on the merits by the Tribunal.
- The Tribunal accepted evidence from the applicant and his father that he was dismissed on 16 May 2001 and on 17 May 2001 they went to solicitors, Macaulay and Wray, and saw a solicitor. The applicant gave instructions that he wanted to proceed with a claim of unfair dismissal, assault and religious discrimination against the respondent. He gave a detailed statement in relation to events. In two weeks' time he was called back for a further consultation with a different solicitor and again he outlined his case and said that he wished to pursue his claims against the company. Both he and his father stated that
- Counsel for the applicant acknowledged quite properly that the line of case law in relation to this pointed to any failure or fault on the part of a skilled advisor is to be laid at the foot of the applicant. The cases that the Tribunal considered were those of Deadman -v- British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd 1974 1 All England 520, Reilly -v- Tesco Stores Ltd 1980 IRLR 103, and finally the case of London International College -v- Sen 1993 IRLR 333. The Tribunal considered that case and noted that the court acknowledged the effect of the earlier authorities such as Deadman and Reilly and had misgivings about the principle that an applicant could not show reasonable impracticability where he had consulted an advisor such as a solicitor, trade union official or similar advisor. It is accepted that this case leaves the law in some confusion and as Harvey on Employment Law comments "….. it is unfortunate that the court did not take the opportunity if it thought that the established principles needed to be reformulated of pronouncing a clear restatement of the law on this point. However until such times as this is done it would seem that employment tribunals should continue to apply the principles that have been laid down by the Court of Appeal in the earlier cases."
- The Tribunal expresses its concern for the way in which the solicitors acted in this case. We have not heard from the firm of solicitors and it may be advice was given to the applicant and his father that the claims for unfair dismissal and religious discrimination should not be continued. In any event the solicitors appeared to have acted contrary to the instructions given to them. This in itself should have alerted the applicant to take his claims elsewhere if the solicitor was acting contrary to his instructions.
- On the basis that he had instructed skilled advisors the Tribunal considers itself bound by the earlier decisions that the remedy for the proceedings lies against those solicitors and is not a valid reason for extending the time limits in these cases. There was no physical reason why the applicant could not have gone to another solicitor or presented his claim within the statutory time limits and although we have sympathy for the
CASE REF NOS: 546/01FET,
3632/01
APPLICANT: Christopher White
RESPONDENT: Curtis Peugeot
The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is that it does not exercise its discretion to extend the statutory time limit in relation to the claim of religious discrimination and finds that it was reasonably practicable for the applicant to have entered his originating application and the claim for unfair dismissal within the statutory time limit. The originating application is dismissed.
APPEARANCES:
APPLICANT: Mr Lowry, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by D R Brewster, Solicitors.
RESPONDENT: Mr Robinson, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Hastings & Co, Solicitors.
the solicitor advised them that the unfair dismissal claim would result in one to two weeks' pay and they were told this did not seem a worthwhile course of action. The applicant went back again after his son was born on 20 June and had more information for the solicitor. He was given to understand that this information would be useful and that they were still pursing claims against the company. He went back again at the end of August and asked to see the solicitor as to how the case was going. There was further discussion. She stated that she had sent letters to the respondent and in fact the Tribunal saw this correspondence. It does not make mention of a claim for unfair dismissal or religious discrimination. In the end the applicant's father went to see the original solicitor at the end of October and at that stage found out that nothing had been done in relation to the claims to the Tribunal. They then moved, within the next two days, to the present solicitor who presented claims to the Tribunal on 7 November 2001. These claims were outside the time limit provided for entering claims to a Tribunal which would have been the 16 August 2001.
applicant in this situation we cannot find on the basis of precedent law that he is entitled to the discretion of the Tribunal in relation to the time limits. The originating application will be dismissed.
____________________________________
M P PRICE
Vice President
Date and place of hearing: 4 April 2003, Belfast
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: