United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

BAILII case number: [1993] UKEAT 133_93_0807

Appeal No. EAT/133/93

EMPOLYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL

58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

At the Tribunal

On 8th July 1993

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KNOX

MR R JACKSON

MR K M HACK JP

---

MR K BOATENG          APPELLANT

1) MR K SUGRUE

2) LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY          RESPONDENTS

---

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

Revised


 


---

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant MR K BOATENG

THE APPELLANT IN PERSON


 


MR JUSTICE KNOX: This is an appeal by Mr Boateng from a decision of the Industrial Tribunal at London (South) on 9th November 1992 on two issues. The decision below covered a variety of points but there are only two issues in the appeal before us that signify.

The first is whether or not an Originating Application, numbered 53104/91, which was presented on the 16th December 1991, in so far as it claimed unfair dismissal, was, as the Industrial Tribunal held, prematurely presented and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal or whether, as Mr Boateng contends before us, it was presented after the effective date of termination and therefore within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. We are satisfied that that case is arguable and that therefore the case should go forward on that issue to a full hearing. The full hearing should have the benefit of the documentary material that was before the Industrial Tribunal, we have had handed to us a bundle which we were told by Mr Boateng was before the Industrial Tribunal, and it is eminently desirable that the written material that was before it should be before the Appeal Tribunal. On the other hand we see no reason to call for the Chairman's Notes of Evidence because this point seems to us to turn, or to be likely to turn, on the documentary material rather than on any oral evidence. That deals with that aspect of the matter.

The second issue in the appeal is whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in law in declining to extend time under Section 68(6) of the Race Relations Act 1976 in relation to a second Originating Application, numbered 52681/92, which was presented on the 15th October 1992 and contained a complaint of racial discrimination in relation to the hearing that occurred of an Appeals Committee on 18th February 1992. It is evident from those dates alone that the complaint in relation to the racial discrimination claim was outside the period of 3 months which is permitted under Section 68(1) of the Race Relations Act. The only issue therefore is whether under Section 68(6), which confers on the Tribunal a jurisdiction to consider complaints which are out of time if in all the circumstances of the case it considers that it is just and equitable to do so, the Industrial Tribunal in declining to exercise that jurisdiction, committed an error of law. What the Industrial Tribunal did was, first of all to say that it was plainly out of time, which is plainly right. Secondly, that Mr Boateng was an experienced person in these matters, partly because he had dealt with it in the course of his employment and partly because he had got legal qualifications, and also he had the benefit of consultations with the Commission for Racial Equality by the 13th March 1992, at latest, and he also had the benefit of a trade union representative. The Industrial Tribunal on that score came to this factual conclusion at paragraph 8:

"A few days after 13th March 1992 must, therefore, be considered as the very latest point at which it would be reasonable for Mr Boateng to take either of those steps, even if we considered that some extension of time should be granted."

The two steps being either to lodge a fresh application in respect of the dismissal in February or to amend the original Originating Application.

Mr Boateng has submitted to us that there is an arguable case on the basis that no prejudice is said to be caused to the Hackney Borough Council in the Industrial Tribunal's decision by extending time and indeed he is right in saying that that is not one of the points that the Industrial Tribunal took in refusing to extend time. On the other hand we are quite unpersuaded that that is an error of law on the Industrial Tribunal's part. The jurisdiction is a very wide one, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to extend if it considers that it is just and equitable to do so and the Industrial Tribunal took the view that given Mr Boateng's experience and the skilled assistance that was available to him he could very well have done what needed to be done well before the time limit actually ran out.

We are unable to detect an arguable case for saying that there is an error of law in what the Industrial Tribunal did under that head. Whether or not we agree with them is neither here or there. That is not the test. The question is whether they have committed an error of law in reaching their conclusion and we are satisfied that that is not arguable.

Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed in relation to that aspect of the matter alone.