Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • 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
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • 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
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Employment tribunals

Employment tribunal fees: Out-of-time discrimination claim revived

by Stephen Simpson 15 Aug 2017
by Stephen Simpson 15 Aug 2017

It has been successfully argued before an employment tribunal that a discrimination claim – thrown out during the fees regime because the claimant did not pay – should be revived.

Employment tribunal claims

Tribunal procedures and penalties

How to respond to an employment tribunal claim

Time limits for bringing tribunal claims – discrimination

In what is thought to be the first case of its kind, Ely Place Chambers has reported that it convinced a Southampton employment tribunal that the time limit for the claim in Dhami v Tesco Stores Ltd should be extended.

Ms Dhami brought claims for disability and age discrimination against Tesco. However, her application for fees remission was rejected and her case was thrown out when she did not pay the fees.

On 26 July, the Supreme Court ruled in R (on the application of Unison) v Lord Chancellor that the Government’s employment tribunal fees regime was unlawful.

The Supreme Court decision opened the door for claimants whose claims were rejected during the fees regime because they did not pay up to revive their cases.

Ms Dhami sought before the Southampton tribunal to have her discrimination case revived, on the basis that it would be “just and equitable” for the time limit for her case to be extended.

Under the Equality Act 2010, employment tribunals can extend the usual three-month time limit for bringing a discrimination claim if it is “just and equitable” to do so.

In a statement, Ely Place Chambers explained why the employment tribunal granted its application for a time limit extension in this case: “Employment judge Wright held that Tesco’s own confusion over the effective date of termination had confused the claimant, whose personal circumstances also justified an extension.

“The judge took into account the fact the claimant had tried to bring a claim in time but had this opportunity denied by the rejection of her first claim for non-payment of what were unlawful fees.”

Had this argument not succeeded, Ms Dhami’s application to reinstate her original claim would have stalled, following a case management order from the President of the Employment Tribunals issued on 9 August.

The case management order stayed cases that relied on the Supreme Court decision, in anticipation of further clarification from the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts and Tribunals Service on the implications of the fees decision.

relx_copyright – This article is XpertHR.co.uk content (c) LexisNexis Risk Solutions Group

Avatar
Stephen Simpson

Stephen Simpson is a principal employment law editor at XpertHR. His areas of responsibility include the policies and documents and law reports. After obtaining a law degree and training to be a solicitor, he moved into publishing, initially with Butterworths. He joined XpertHR in its early days in 2001.

previous post
Pay gaps need to tackle ethnicity and disability as well as gender, urges EHRC
next post
L&D needs to stop creating and start curating

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

You may also like

Employment tribunal cases fall to pre-pandemic levels

15 Dec 2023

Autistic police officer wins discrimination claim

11 Dec 2023

Eight most unusual employment tribunal cases in 2023

1 Dec 2023

Train driver unfairly dismissed after tarantula prank

28 Nov 2023

Former Jaguar Land Rover employee awarded £148k for...

27 Nov 2023

RSA unfairly dismissed employee for union-related activity

8 Nov 2023

‘Grow up’ comment was not age discrimination

7 Nov 2023

Pharmacist stereotyped as ‘aggressive black man’ wins harassment...

31 Oct 2023

Sex harassment claims could multiply after Swiss Re...

24 Oct 2023

Tribunal rules former White Lake Cheese employee was...

24 Oct 2023

  • Internal mobility: how to unlock your employees’ potential PROMOTED | Most employers understand...Read more
  • How to spot and tackle imposter syndrome in the workplace PROMOTED | Half of all UK adults...Read more
  • BetterMe for Business: How to Build Wellness Culture at Work PROMOTED | Ever encountered a...Read more
  • Talent acquisition: How AI can complement a ‘back to basics’ approach PROMOTED | Artificial intelligence is now...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 2023

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2023 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • 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
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+