Haziz Rahim v The Big Word & Anor
[2023] EAT 171
Carmen Chevalier-Firescu v HSBC Bank PLC
9 February 2024
[2024] EAT 6
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A worker sued her bank for discrimination. A judge dismissed the case early without a full hearing. A higher court said the judge made mistakes and should hear the case again, properly, with a different judge.
Key Facts
- •Carmen Chevalier-Firescu (Claimant/Appellant) brought two claims against HSBC Bank PLC (Respondent) for discrimination and victimisation related to her unsuccessful job applications.
- •The first claim (First Claim) alleged race and sex discrimination and victimisation concerning a 2018 job application.
- •The second claim (Second Claim), issued shortly before a preliminary hearing (OPH), alleged continued discrimination and victimisation.
- •The Employment Judge struck out both claims at the OPH, finding the First Claim out of time and the Second Claim lacking jurisdiction due to the Claimant not being a job applicant after mid-July 2018.
- •The EAT allowed the appeal, focusing on procedural irregularities and errors in the Judge's approach to time limits and the striking out of the Second Claim.
- •The Claimant argued that late disclosure of crucial documents by the Respondent impacted her ability to bring timely claims.
- •The Respondent argued that the Claimant had sufficient knowledge to file her claims earlier and that the Second Claim was a cynical attempt to extend time limits.
Legal Principles
Caution must be exercised when striking out discrimination claims at preliminary stages, as determining pivotal issues early may lead to injustice.
Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2007] ICR 1126, Anyanwu v South Bank Students’ Union [2001] IRLR 305
Discrimination cases are highly fact-sensitive, and should be determined after full consideration of all relevant evidence.
Anyanwu v South Bank Students’ Union [2001] IRLR 305
The Tribunal's discretion to extend time limits under s.123 of the Equality Act 2010 is broad but must be exercised judicially, considering all relevant factors.
Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan [2018] ICR 1194
In victimisation claims, the Claimant must show a causative link between the detriment and the protected act, but conscious motivation is not required.
Aziz v Trinity Taxis Ltd [1988] ICR 534 (CA); Nagarajan v London Regional Transport [1999] IRLR 572 (HL)
Appellate courts should be cautious when reviewing an Employment Tribunal's findings of fact, interfering only where a clear error of law is evident.
DPP Law v Greenberg [2021] EWCA Civ 672 (CA), Oxford Said Business School and White v Heslop UKEATPA/0110/21/VP
Outcomes
The EAT allowed the appeal.
The Employment Judge erred in striking out the Second Claim due to serious procedural irregularities and an improper approach to the time limit issue. The Judge failed to consider relevant matters, strayed into a mini-trial of the merits, and did not adequately address the impact of late disclosure by the Respondent.
The case was remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal.
The EAT found perversity and a clear expression of the Judge's view on the merits, making it difficult for the same Tribunal to fairly reconsider the case.