[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Parnell v. Wiltshire & Swindon Users Network [2000] UKEAT 594_00_1406 (14 June 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2000/594_00_1406.html Cite as: [2000] UKEAT 594__1406, [2000] UKEAT 594_00_1406

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MS JANE VERNON (of Counsel) Wiltshire Law Centre 115 - 118 Commercial Road Swindon SN5 5PL


 


JUDGE CLARK

1. The Appellant, Ms Parnell, was employed by the Respondent as a development worker from 16 September 1996 until her resignation effective on 8 January 1999. On 13 December 1999 she presented an Originating Application to the Bristol Employment Tribunal complaining of constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. She is a manic depressive.
2. The matter came before an Employment Tribunal sitting on 8 March 2000 for determination of a preliminary issue. The complaints were presented outside the primary 3 month limitation period and the question for the Employment Tribunal was whether it was reasonably practicable for the Appellant to present her claim of unfair dismissal within time and whether it was just and equitable to extend time for presentation of the disability discrimination complaint.
3. The Employment Tribunal found, in a decision promulgated with extended reasons on 27 March 2000, that the Appellant was aware of her statutory rights and of the relevant time limits. Following her resignation she felt unable to cope in Bristol and returned to her roots in Burnley Lancashire.
4. It appears from the medical evidence which is before the Employment Tribunal she left for Burnley on 20 March 1999.
5. The Employment Tribunal found that she was in reasonably good health up to March 1999, but took a turn for the worse thereafter.
6. During the primary limitation period she attempted to complete the form ET1 but felt unable to do so. Nor did she feel that anyone else could perform that task on her behalf.
7. In these circumstances the Employment Tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for her to present her complaint of unfair dismissal within the time. Further, taking into account that the Respondent was a small organisation with limited resources and that during the delay a person mentioned by the Appellant in her ET1 had died, it was not just and equitable to extend time under the Disability Discrimination Act. Consequently both complaints were dismissed.
8. Against that decision the Appellant now appeals. In Palmer –v- Southend Borough Council (1984) IRLR 119 the Court of Appeal made it clear that the question as to whether or not it was reasonably practicable to present a claim of unfair dismissal within time is essentially a question of fact for the Employment Tribunal. Further, the discretion to extend time under the just and equitable provision in the discrimination statute is a wide one. Hutchinson –v- Westward Television Ltd (1977) ICR 279. However, there is no inflexible rule that the Employment Appeal Tribunal cannot interfere with such findings. We bear in mind, under the provisions of Section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996, the Court of Appeal decision in Schultz –v- Esso Petroleum (1999) IRLR 489 and under the just and equitable powers of extension cases such as Hawkins –v- Ball & Barclays Bank Plc (1996) IRLR 258 (EAT, Keene J).
9. In our view this case does require argument at a full hearing. The real question is whether the Employment Tribunal properly applied the test of reasonable feasibility mentioned in Palmer's case, and whether, on their own findings, they failed to take into account the question as to whether the Appellant was disabled by her illness at the end of the primary limitation period from completing her and presenting her complaint of unfair dismissal? If so, did she then present that complaint within a reasonable time after the expiry of the limitation period? Bearing in mind the less restrictive just and equitable provision under the Disability Discrimination Act, if she were to succeed on the unfair dismissal part of her appeal, did the Employment Tribunal err in the exercise of its discretion in respect to the disability claim? These questions arise in the context of the medical evidence which was before the Employment Tribunal. Ms Vernon has submitted that the Employment Tribunal's conclusion in this case was perverse. Bearing in mind the opinions expressed in the 6 reports from medical health workers which were before the Employment Tribunal, it may be that that question ought to be considered in the context of the other questions which we have earlier formulated.
10. In these circumstances we shall allow the matter to proceed to a full hearing, simply for the purpose of hearing full argument. That is no indication as to the eventual outcome of this appeal. The case will be listed for ½ a day; category C. There will be exchange of skeleton between the parties not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the full appeal hearing. There are no further directions, in particular Chairman's notes of evidence are not required in this case.