Ministry of Defence v Anne Rubery
[2024] EAT 165
Patti-Merne Edwards v Ministry of Defence
5 March 2024
[2024] EAT 18
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A soldier claimed discrimination but her initial complaint to the army didn't clearly say it was discrimination. The court ruled that while she didn't need to use legal jargon, her complaint had to clearly state it was about discrimination, or the court couldn't hear her case. The court said this balance is fair, as the army should get a chance to address issues first, but the soldier still has a way to get justice.
Key Facts
- •Patti-Merne Edwards, a Lance Corporal in the British Armed Forces, brought claims for race and sex discrimination and victimisation.
- •She filed a service complaint but it did not explicitly mention race or sex discrimination, harassment, or victimisation.
- •The Employment Tribunal (ET) ruled it lacked jurisdiction to hear her claims due to insufficient detail in the service complaint.
- •Edwards appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
Legal Principles
Section 121 of the Equality Act 2010 (EQA) requires a service complaint to sufficiently indicate allegations of discrimination or harassment, including the relevant protected characteristic(s), before an employment tribunal can have jurisdiction.
Equality Act 2010, Section 121; Armed Forces Act 2006, Section 340A; Armed Forces (Service Complaints) Regulations 2015
A purposive construction should be applied to Section 121 of the EQA to balance the Armed Forces' internal complaint process with a complainant's Article 6 ECHR right to access justice.
Duncan v Ministry of Defence UKEAT/0191/14/RN
The service complaint need not use specific legal terms but must, in substance, clearly indicate the nature of the complaint as one of discrimination or harassment.
Zulu & Gue v Ministry of Defence
Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time. Limitations on access to courts must not impair the essence of this right.
Zubac v Croatia, Nait-Liman v Switzerland, Momčiloviċ v Croatia
Outcomes
The EAT dismissed Edwards' appeal.
The EAT upheld the ET's decision that Edwards' service complaint lacked sufficient detail to establish the ET's jurisdiction to hear her claims. The complaint failed to explicitly or implicitly allege discrimination or harassment based on race or sex.