Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Williams v Lehman Brothers Ltd [1998] UKEAT 59_98_2704 (27 April 1998)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1998/59_98_2704.html
Cite as: [1998] UKEAT 59_98_2704
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
LORD GLADWIN OF CLEE CBE JP
MR J A SCOULLER
MS J WILLIAMS APPELLANT
LEHMAN BROTHERS LTD RESPONDENT
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
| For the Appellant | IN PERSON |
JUDGE D M LEVY QC: Ms J. Williams complained to an Industrial Tribunal that she had been the subject of racial discrimination in her employment with Lehman Brothers Ltd, the Respondent. Unhappily for her, she presented her complaint outside the time limit prescribed by section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and in the circumstances the learned Chairman sitting alone considered whether it was right to allow her complaint to proceed further
The hearing of this preliminary issue took place on 18 August 1997 and the Decision was sent to the parties on 4 September 1997. Reading the Extended Reasons, it is clear to all of us that the Chairman properly addressed herself on the questions on jurisdiction. First she considered whether it was reasonably practicable for Ms Williams to present her complaint within the period of three months allowed and secondly, whether in the circumstances of the case, it was just and equitable to extend the time. These are the questions to be asked and answered.
The Chairman came down firmly on both questions against Ms Williams. She knew of the time limits. She could have brought her proceedings in time. Indeed, she was warned a couple of days before the closing date by which the complaint had to be made, of the time limits by a solicitor.
We have considered all that Ms Williams raised in the Notice of Appeal and in her oral and written submissions.
She has not raised anything new which could not have been raised at the preliminary hearing. Sympathise though we do with her in her situation, our hands are tied where we can see that a Chairman has exercised her discretion properly. It may be that a different Chairman might have come to another decision, but where a Chairman has come to a decision, to which she was entitled to come to on the facts presented and the submissions made, the Employment Appeal Tribunal cannot interfere with it.
In those circumstances we have to dismiss the appeal. We know that Ms Williams has had the advantage of an interview with ELAAS this morning. Albeit unsuccessfully, she represented herself very ably this afternoon and we thank her for submissions.