[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Odedra v. Mead & Anor [2001] UKEAT 0479_01_1409 (14 September 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/0479_01_1409.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 0479_01_1409, [2001] UKEAT 479_1_1409

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant


 


JUDGE D SEROTA QC

1. Ms Odebra was formerly employed by the London Borough of Hackney. Regrettably, her health broke down and we understand that her contract of employment with the London Borough of Hackney came to an end on 30 January 1996. Ms Odebra was then involved in a number of pieces of litigation with the London Borough of Hackney. In particular, she made a claim under the Race Relations Act, which was determined in her favour leading to an agreement in August 1998 whereby she was to receive substantial compensation.
2. She has evidently felt continued grievance against the London Borough of Hackney in relation to matters that occurred while she was still employed, matters relating to her previous proceedings which have not been fully resolved and in relation to what she sees as conduct which is regarded by her discriminatory or victimisation that has occurred since 30 January 1996.
3. Now, it has to be understood clearly that claims under the Race Relations Act must be presented before the end of three months beginning when the act complained of was done unless the Tribunal chooses to extend time in cases where it considers it just and equitable to do so. That is the time limit so far as discrimination cases is concerned.
4. So far as claims and contract are concerned those are required by Article 7 of the extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994 to be brought within three months beginning with the effective date of termination of the contract giving rise to the claim. Again there is power to extend that period if the Tribunal is satisfied that it was not practicable for the complaint to be presented within whichever of these periods is applicable.
5. There is power in the Procedure Regulations for a Tribunal to strike out an original application on the grounds that it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious. The Respondent made such an application to strike out this application and when the matter came before the Employment Tribunal on 1 March 2001 sitting at Stratford the Tribunal, having considered carefully the claims made by the Applicant Ms Odebra, came to the conclusion that so far as the discrimination claims are concerned they were made out of time. Victimisation claims were bound to fail because they occurred at a time after she had ceased to be employed and the contractual claims were also out of time.
6. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that in all the circumstances the claims were such that it would not be right or just and equitable to extend the time nor could it be said that it was not reasonably practicable for the contractual complaints to have been made earlier. These are questions of fact which we simply are unable to review.
7. We have read with very great care the various documents that have been put before us by Ms Odebra. It is evident that MsOdebra is in some distress and of course we take that into account. But we have not been able to detect any issue of law that she raises that has any chance of success that might persuade the Employment Appeal Tribunal that the decision of the Employment Tribunal to strike out her claims either on the basis of their being frivolous and vexatious or because there was no jurisdiction to entertain them, would have any realistic chance of success.
8. In those circumstances, it seems to us that we must rule that this Appeal falls to be dismissed.