[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Gibson v. Northampton County Council & Anor [2002] UKEAT 1381_01_2005 (20 May 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/1381_01_2005.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 1381_1_2005, [2002] UKEAT 1381_01_2005

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

APPEARANCES

 

	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT


 


JUDGE PETER CLARK:

1. By an Originating Application presented to the Employment Tribunal on 15 May 1995 the Applicant, Mrs Gibson, complained of unlawful exclusion from an occupational pension scheme by the Respondent council on the basis that she was a part-time employee. Her employment with the Respondent finally ended in 1989. Her claim, along with some 60,000 others was stayed pending the determination of certain questions by the House of Lords in Preston v. Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust, including the issue as to whether or not the temporal limitation on claims of six months, following final termination of employment, contained in section 2(4) Equal Pay Act 1970, was incompatible with European Community Law. Following a reference to the European Court of Justice the House of Lords finally decided, in Preston (No 2) (2001) IRLR 237, that it was not. On 1 March 2001 the Applicant was asked to show cause why her complaint should not be struck out, the House of Lords decision having been delivered on 8 February 2001.
2. In a letter dated 4 March 2001, the Applicant pointed out that her relevant employment with the Respondent ended in 1989, not 1977 as she had said in her Originating Application. She contended that the 6 month time limit was irrelevant.
3. By a decision with extended reasons promulgated on 24 July and later corrected on 10 October 2001, the Regional Chairman at Bedford struck out the complaint on the basis that it was bound to fail. Against that decision the Applicant now appeals.
4. The case has been listed before us today for preliminary hearing. The Appellant, who is now some 80 years of age, understandably feels unable to attend the hearing in person and has asked us to adjudicate on the basis of the papers. We have read her letters sent both to the Employment Tribunal and to the Registrar of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, with care.
5. However nothing in those letters meets the point that her claim was presented over 5 years after her employment with the Respondent finally terminated. The claim is brought under the Equal Pay Act and not the Sex Discrimination Act. Section 2(4) of the Equal Pay Act provides for a six month limitation period. There is no provision for an extension of time in circumstances where it is just and equitable to do so; compare the Race, Sex and Disability Discrimination Legislation; nor is the question of reasonable practicability raised in the Equal Pay Act. That point has been decided effectively against her by the House of Lords in Preston, after reference to the European Court of Justice. We are, of course, bound by the House of Lords decision.
6. In these circumstances the Regional Chairman had no alternative but to dismiss this application. We in turn have no alternative but to dismiss her appeal.