1/ CA judgment was handed down today in Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan. It'll be the go-to case for Claimants seeking a just and equitable extension of time under the Equality Act.
External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @agnesfrim view original on Twitter
2/ First, the Court deals with s.123(4), dismissing an argument by the Board that the date time runs from in an omission case must also be considered the date of breach.
3/ The CA then turns to the 'just and equitable' discretion, starting by restating the well known approach to the Limitation Act s.33 factors set out in Keeble and clarified in Afolabi as not being a checklist. Leggatt considers the position more closely analogous to s.7(5) HRA.
4/ Leggatt LJ highlights two factors as being almost always relevant: (a) length of the delay and the reasons for it, and (b) whether the delay has prejudiced the respondent.
5/ Leggatt LJ goes on to describe the margin of discretion as being of 'very wide ambit' and 'broad and unfettered', cautioning that it should be rare for the exercise of discretion to be disturbed on appeal.
6/ Importantly, Leggatt LJ makes clear s.123(1) does not provide for a threshold whereby the claimant has to show a good reason for the delay. The claimant needs give no explanation at all. The lack of explanation is merely a relevant factor rather than determinative.
7/ That appears to put to bed para 52 of Langstaff J's judgment in the first EAT appeal in Morgan, which provided a useful hurdle for employers to raise. At the very least it heavily dampens down the emphasis.
8/ As a result, the question of a 'burden' on the claimant appears downgraded to near irrelevance. There's no reference to Caston and although Robertson v Bexley is referred to, the reference is not to the ' exercise of discretion is the exception rather than the rule' quote.
I seem to have posted the wrong link. Surprisingly the Trumpburger has nothing to do with Equality Act time limits. Try this one instead: bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ The Court of Appeal's judgment in Secretary of State for BEIS v Parry and Trustees of the William Jones's School Foundation is fascinating for a whole host of reasons, perhaps particularly a little bit of obiter thrown in at the end bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/…#ukemplaw
2/ First, unusually this was an appeal brought by a non-party to the original hearing and to the EAT appeal. All parties accepted (eventually) the CA had jurisdiction. The SoS had only appealed in shock and horror at an ultra vires ruling without being added as a party.
3/ The case was a bit of a mess from the start. On the ET1 the unfair dismissal and arrears of pay boxes were ticked. In box 8.2 (the details of claim box) 'Please see attached' was written, but particulars of the wrong claim were attached. I believe the right emoji is 🤦♂️
1/ Thread: The CJEU judgment in the holiday pay case of King v Sash Windows is out and is a 'must-read' for all #ukemplaw practitioners. curia.europa.eu/juris/document…
2/ As you'll know, Mr King worked for Sash Windows for 13 years and was never paid for taking annual leave. This meant some years he was reluctant to take it. #ukemplaw
3/ On retirement he brought a claim for (1) pay for holiday accrued but untaken in his final leave year; (2) pay for holiday taken throughout the 13 years; and (3) payment in lieu for accrued but untaken holiday throughout the 13 years.