University Of Huddersfield v Halim

An Employment Tribunal should first determine whether each discrimination complaint is in time, including whether the alleged matters form a continuing state of affairs. Only if a complaint is out of time should it decide whether to extend time under the just and equitable provision.

Both parties must have a proper opportunity to address the limitation issue and to adduce relevant evidence. Deciding the extension question before resolving timeliness, without full submissions, is procedurally irregular.

The claimant brought disability discrimination complaints against her employer, including alleged failures to make reasonable adjustments related to her vision. The Employment Tribunal upheld four complaints in part and dismissed the remainder. Neither party appealed that substantive judgment.

During the final day of the hearing, the employer raised limitation. The Tribunal indicated that it would extend time on a just and equitable basis, but did not decide whether the relevant complaints were in time as part of a continuing act. The employer appealed the limitation ruling.

The central issue was whether the Tribunal had lawfully extended time without first determining the continuing-act and limitation questions and without hearing full submissions.

1. Appeal allowed. The limitation ruling was set aside and the issue remitted to the same Employment Tribunal, if practicable, for rehearing.

2. The Tribunal adopted the wrong sequence. It should first have decided whether any of the relevant breaches were in time, including whether they formed part of a continuing state of affairs. It should then have considered the just and equitable extension only in respect of any complaints found to be out of time.

3. The claimant was not given a proper opportunity to advance the continuing-acts case or to lead evidence relevant to limitation. The employer was likewise not afforded a proper opportunity to argue against the proposed extension. The compressed procedure therefore created procedural irregularity affecting both parties.

4. On remission, the Tribunal was directed to determine whether any or all of the three specified breaches were out of time and, if so, whether it was just and equitable to extend time and the reasons for doing so. The claimant might be recalled to give evidence confined to limitation, and the employer could call relevant evidence.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Allowed the employer's appeal against the Employment Tribunal's limitation ruling and remitted the issue for rehearing: [2014] UKEAT 0446_13_0703.
• Employment Tribunal (Leeds): On 19 April 2013, with written reasons issued on 10 June 2013, extended time in relation to three findings of failure to make reasonable adjustments. Its substantive judgment, delivered on 19 August 2013, upheld four complaints in part; that judgment was not appealed.