United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MRS V VON WACHTER of the Free Representation Unit C/o Godington Farm Godington Bicester OX6 9AF


 


MR JUSTICE MORISON (PRESIDENT): The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether there is an arguable point of law in an appeal against a decision of an Industrial Tribunal held at Bedford on 4th November 1997. The tribunal, the Chairman sitting alone, concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the applicant's applications of unfair dismissal and sex discrimination brought against her employers and a named individual.

The reason why the Chairman concluded that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction was because her complaints had been presented to the Industrial Tribunal six days after the expiry of the three month time limit period.

In relation to the case of unfair dismissal, on this appeal it has been submitted to us that the learned Chairman's approach to the question as to whether it was reasonably practicable for her to have presented her complaint within time was flawed. He observed in the course of his decision, that she was well aware of her rights during the three month period and was not so ill, certainly during the early part of that period, that she was unable to deal with her Originating Application.

It has been submitted to us that it is arguable that thereby the Industrial Tribunal Chairman has expressed the view that if it was reasonably practicable for her to have presented her complaint in the early part of the three month period, then it became reasonably practicable for her to have presented it at any stage during that period, and that that was a misdirection having regard to his finding, as it appears to be, that she was suffering from poor health and serious depression.

We regard that point as arguable.

In relation to the Sex Discrimination Act complaint, where the tribunal has a wide discretion to extend time in the interests of justice and equity; it is submitted to us that the learned Chairman failed to give any or any sufficient reasons for his conclusion that he should not exercise his discretion; secondly, that he has not correctly balanced the prejudice to the parties if he extended time on the one hand or if he refused to extend time on the other; and thirdly, that his decision was perverse having regard to the state of the applicant's poor health and serious depression following the termination of her employment.

We regard those points as arguable. Accordingly, the matter must proceed to a full hearing and we should make it plain that, as this is an ex parte hearing, we express no view one way or the other as to the outcome of the appeal.

It should be listed as a Category C case and be heard by Judge Peter Clark.