Haziz Rahim v The Big Word & Anor
[2023] EAT 171
Jerzy Lawrynowicz v Bidvest Noonan (UK) Limited
9 February 2024
[2024] EAT 13
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A worker's claim for unfair dismissal was thrown out by a Tribunal, but an appeal court reversed that decision. The appeal court said the Tribunal made mistakes in its process, didn't properly understand the worker's initial complaint and wrongly rejected his later changes to the claim. The case will be heard again by the Tribunal.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Jerzy Lawrynowicz (claimant) appealed a decision of the Employment Tribunal (ET) refusing his application to amend his claim and striking out his claim.
- •The claimant's initial claim, filed in March 2021, vaguely mentioned personal injury, loss of wages, and unpaid taxes, relating to alleged mistreatment at work leading to a mental breakdown and resignation.
- •Subsequent hearings led to requests for further particulars and an eventual application to amend the claim to include constructive dismissal and discrimination.
- •The ET refused the amendment and struck out the claim, finding the new claims were out of time and based on new facts.
- •The claimant appealed to the EAT, arguing he had followed the ET's directions.
Legal Principles
Test for admitting fresh evidence
Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489
Approach to applications for fresh evidence at EAT stage
Korashi v Aberawe Bro [2012] IRLR 4
Amendment to grounds of appeal at a late stage
Readman v Devon Primary Care Trust, UKEAT/0116/11/ZT
Time limits for claims and the exercise of discretion to extend time limits
Selkent Bus Co v Moore [1996] IC 836
Power to vary case management orders
Chaudry v Cerberus Security and Monitoring Services Ltd [2022] EAT 172
Standard of review for ET decisions
O’Cathail v Transport for London [2013] EWCA Civ 21; Medallion Holidays Ltd v Birch [1985] IRLR 406; Adams and Raynor v West Sussex County Council [1990] IRLR 215
Test for strike out
Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James [2006] IRLR 630
Outcomes
Appeal successful: The EAT set aside the ET's decision refusing the amendment and striking out the claim.
The EAT found the ET erred in characterizing the claimant's amended claims as entirely new, failing to consider the information in the initial claim form and subsequent correspondence. The ET also failed to properly apply the test for strike out.
Remittal to the ET
The matter was remitted to the ET to reconsider the amendment application, the strike-out, and the claimant's disability claim, while acknowledging potential time bar and delay issues.