Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Case lawEmployment lawDiscipline and grievances

Bupa Care Homes v Cann and Spillett v Tesco

by Personnel Today 12 Jul 2006
by Personnel Today 12 Jul 2006

Joe Glavina, of Addleshaw Goddard outlines the latest legal rulings and explains what you need to do to avoid tribunals

Statutory grievance procedure – time limits in discrimination claims

Bupa Care Homes v Cann and Spillett v Tesco
Employment Appeal Tribunal

In this important decision in the joined cases of Bupa Care Homes v Cann and Spillett v Tesco, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has decided that a tribunal has discretion to allow a discrimination claim to proceed where the grievance was submitted more than four months after the act of discrimination.

Under the statutory grievance procedure, an employee must raise a grievance and wait 28 days before bringing a tribunal claim. A grievance must, generally, be submitted within the “normal time limit” for submitting a tribunal claim – in most cases, this will be three months from the act complained of. Where a grievance has been submitted within the normal time limit, this will automatically be extended by three months.

No extension

Where a grievance is submitted less than one month after the normal time limit has expired, there is no automatic extension of time to submit the claim, so the claim will be out of time. However, in these circumstances, the tribunal has discretion to extend time for presenting the claim.

The employee must still wait 28 days after submitting the grievance to submit the claim.

However, where a grievance is submitted more than one month after the normal time limit, the grievance is out of time. The claim cannot be heard since the tribunal has no jurisdiction to extend time for the employee to submit a grievance. In a discrimination claim, this brings the provisions of the Employment Act 2002 into direct conflict with the discrimination statutes, which allow for an extension of time beyond the normal three-month limit, on a “just and equitable” basis.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Both Mrs Cann, a care worker, and Mrs Spillett, a general assistant in a petrol filling station, brought claims of disability discrimination against their respective employers. The central issue was whether the expression “original time limit” in section 32(4) of the Employment Act 2002 referred to the primary three-month limitation period, or to the primary period as extended by the tribunal where it was “just and equitable” to extend time in a claim under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

Key points



  • The EAT resolved the conflict between the statutes by finding that the “normal time limit” in a discrimination claim includes any extension of the time limit on a just and equitable basis.
  • The limitation imposed by the EA 2002 is trumped by a tribunal’s discretion under the discrimination legislation to extend the time limit for presenting a complaint where it is “just and equitable” to do so.

What you should do



  • Be aware that these decisions open the way for employees to bring discrimination grievances (and subsequently tribunal claims) more than four months from the act of discrimination complained of.
  • Don’t assume that claims submitted after the normal time limit will necessarily be rejected by the tribunal. It is still entitled to exercise its general discretion to consider a discrimination complaint outside of the original time limit where it considers it is just and equitable to do so.

Tesco
Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
Crown Prosecution Service denies racism claim
next post
Work and pensions secretary, John Hutton, confident that job cuts at Department for Work and Pensions will not affect service delivery

You may also like

Government publishes ‘roadmap’ for Employment Rights Bill

1 Jul 2025

‘Be direct’ to avoid escalating conflict, advises Acas

30 Jun 2025

Employers’ duty of care: keeping workers safe in...

27 Jun 2025

When will the Employment Rights Bill become law?

26 Jun 2025

Fear of confrontation means disputes escalate – research

25 Jun 2025

Seven ways to prepare now for the Employment...

20 Jun 2025

Sleeping security officer wins £20k for unfair dismissal

16 Jun 2025

The employer strikes back: the rise of ‘quiet...

13 Jun 2025

Lawyers warn over impact of Employment Rights Bill...

13 Jun 2025

Workplace disputes: ‘Most employment tribunals could be avoided’

12 Jun 2025

  • Empowering working parents and productivity during the summer holidays SPONSORED | Businesses play a...Read more
  • AI is here. Your workforce should be ready. SPONSORED | From content creation...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+