Collins v Standard Chartered Bank Ltd

An appellate court should not interfere with an employment tribunal’s discretionary refusal to permit a late amendment adding a disability-discrimination claim unless the tribunal acted outside its discretion, was plainly wrong, or made an error of law. Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Schedule 3 paragraph 3, a tribunal cannot consider an out-of-time complaint unless it considers that it is just and equitable to do so. The tribunal may decide that time issue before determining whether the claimant is disabled. The Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal from an employment tribunal.

The applicant had worked for the respondent bank until her dismissal following a prolonged period of sick leave. She presented an employment tribunal claim alleging unfair dismissal, race discrimination, victimisation, deductions from wages and breach of contract.

She later sought to add a claim under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The employment tribunal refused the amendment as out of time and declined to extend time on the just-and-equitable basis. It subsequently struck out the originating application for inadequate particulars and refused a review. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed her appeal against the refusal to amend. She then applied to the Court of Appeal, seeking to challenge both the strike-out decisions and the EAT’s decision.

1. Strike-out decisions. The Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal directly from an employment tribunal. An appeal lay first to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The proposed appeal against the strike-out and review decisions was therefore hopeless.
2. Time limit. Under paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 3 to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, an employment tribunal must not consider a complaint unless it is presented within three months beginning when the complained-of act was done. Paragraph 3(2) permits consideration out of time only where the tribunal considers that it is just and equitable to do so. The tribunal was therefore entitled to address the time issue before deciding whether the applicant was disabled.
3. Appellate review. The refusal to allow the late amendment was discretionary. The Court of Appeal would intervene only if the tribunal acted outside the proper ambit of its discretion, was plainly wrong, or made an error of law. The tribunal was entitled to refuse the amendment in the circumstances, and the EAT’s decision disclosed no arguable error.
4. The application was dismissed. Any possible claim arising from the solicitors’ conduct did not assist the application.

• Employment Tribunal: refused to allow the originating application to be amended to add the disability-discrimination claim, declining to extend time; it later struck out the application for failure to provide particulars and refused a review.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: dismissed the appeal against the refusal to permit the amendment.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the application, holding that it had no jurisdiction over a direct appeal from the Employment Tribunal and that the appeal against the EAT decision was hopeless.