Discrimination: Extension of Time

Thanks to Vanessa James of SA Law for preparing this case summary

Is it necessary for an employment tribunal to set out all the factors upon which it decided that a claim was time-barred? No, holds the EAT in the case of Hall v ADP Dealer Services Ltd

Ms Hall was employed by ADP as a compensation manager until 10 February 2012. She subsequently brought a claim for age discrimination, which was received by the Tribunal on 30 November 2012. The Claimant alleged that she was given misleading references by ADP, the last of which was in July 2012.

Ms Hall acknowledged that her claim was out of time in her ET1 but maintained that the delay was due to ADP insisting that she follow their grievance process first.

The employment tribunal held that the claim was time-barred and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The Claimant appealed the decision on several grounds, including the Tribunal's failure to take relevant factors into account and the failure to provide adequate reasons for the decision. The EAT held that there was no error of law in the Tribunal's reasoning.

The EAT stated that there is no need for an employment tribunal to follow a formulaic approach and set out a checklist of the variety of factors that may be relevant in any case, in particular where no reliance has been placed upon them, or where other factors have been addressed in evidence as being of a greater significance. The EAT considered that the judge adequately explained the reasons for her decision and therefore the appeal was dismissed.