Veitch Penny LLP - Exeter | Crediton, Devon

Case

Lambeth London Borough Council v Corlett
Employment Appeal Tribunal - 12 October 2006

Issues

(1) The Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004 (“the Regulations”)
(2) Extension of Time under Regulation 15;
(3) Pre-Hearing Review.

Facts

Mr Corlett was employed as an Estate Director for the Respondent Council. In October 2005 he was summarily dismissed by his employer. More than six months later he filed claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, discriminatory dismissal and discrimination based on race and sexual orientation. However, as he had issued proceedings outside the normal three month time limit, the issue of whether he could continue his case was considered at a pre-hearing review. Mr Corlett sought to rely upon the extension of time available under Regulation 15 of the Regulations.

The Tribunal found that because the act of discrimination was the dismissal itself, the statutory grievance procedure did not apply. Instead Mr Corlett was entitled to rely on Regulation 15(2) to extend time and on the facts an internal appeal against his dismissal was pending when the initial time limit to make a claim had expired. No ruling was made about the wrongful dismissal claim.

The respondent employer appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

Decision

The EAT made the following findings in respect of each head of claim:-

1. Wrongful dismissal

There is no need to use the grievance procedure here as the breach of contract claim was inextricably linked to the unfair dismissal claim. His grievance was that he had been dismissed. His internal appeal included the substance of his wrongful dismissal claim so the claim fell within Regulation 15(2) and could proceed.

2. Unfair Dismissal

Mr Corlett could rely upon Regulation 15 because he had a reasonable expectation that the employer would hold an appeal in the disciplinary proceedings.

3. Discriminatory Dismissal

The grievance procedure did not apply here so Mr Corlett could not rely upon the extension of time. The EAT had to consider whether the discrimination was an inherent part of the dismissal. On the facts, the discrimination was not inherent in the dismissal because he had not stated that the claims of race discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination were connected to the employer’s action of dismissing him. Accordingly, there were no grounds for him to believe that an internal appeal was ongoing as required by Regulation 15 for an extension of time to be granted.

Accordingly, his discrimination claims could not proceed.

Comments

This case clearly demonstrates the level of complication the Regulations have added to Tribunal procedure for both employee and employer, particularly as most Tribunal applications are now accepted to be multi-claim.

It is therefore good news that a consultation regarding the simplification or even repeal of the Regulations has recently been announced.

Rachel Billen - Associate Solicitor, Commercial Department at Veitch Penny.
Tel: 01392 278381, Fax: 01392 410247, Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

This Employment Law Update does not constitute legal or other professional advice and should not be relied on as such. You should take specific advice regarding your circumstances before taking any action based on the information contained within this Update.