Carmen Chevalier-Firescu v HSBC Bank PLC
[2024] EAT 6
Haziz Rahim v The Big Word & Anor
12 December 2023
[2023] EAT 171
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A worker sued his employer for unfair treatment. The judge threw out the case because it was filed late. The appeals court said the judge should have looked at the worker's request to change the case before dismissing it. The case will now be reheard.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against Employment Judge Barrowclough's judgment dismissing Mr Rahim's claims as out of time.
- •Mr Rahim's ET1 claim contained a 204-page attachment deemed incomprehensible.
- •Claims included disability discrimination, religious discrimination, whistleblowing detriment/dismissal, and unpaid wages.
- •Mr Rahim argued that the judge failed to consider his amendment application and relevant post-termination events.
- •The respondent argued that Mr Rahim's conduct, including late submissions and excessive documentation, hampered the proceedings.
Legal Principles
Need to identify claims correctly before striking out, especially in discrimination cases.
Cox v Adecco Group Limited [2021] ICR
Amendment applications should be considered before striking out a claim; parameters of the case cannot be determined otherwise.
Cox v Adecco Group Limited [2021] ICR
Caution should be exercised when dealing with badly-pleaded cases, especially those by litigants in person.
Mbuisa v Cygnet Healthcare Ltd UKEAT/0119/18
High threshold for perversity arguments; the judge's decision must be one that no reasonable judge could have reached.
No specific case cited, but implicit in the judgment.
Overriding objective in employment tribunals includes fair distribution of resources.
Implicit in the judgment, referencing the overriding objective.
Outcomes
Appeal allowed on grounds 1 and 2.
The Employment Judge failed to consider Mr Rahim's written amendment application before striking out the claim. This impacted the determination of whether the claim was in time.
No decision on grounds 3 and 4.
The EAT deemed it inappropriate to rule on these grounds before the ET considered the amendment application and its effect on time limits.
Appeal dismissed on ground 5.
The judge's decision on the correct respondent was supported by evidence and did not meet the high threshold for a perversity challenge.
Case remitted to the Employment Tribunal for rehearing.
To allow the ET to consider the amendment application and its impact on the time limits and the substance of the claims.