[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Hook v. Richmond Upon Thames & Anor [2002] UKEAT 1417_01_1203 (12 March 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/1417_01_1203.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 1417_1_1203, [2002] UKEAT 1417_01_1203

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	Mr M Kelly (Of Counsel) Represented by: Messrs Stone Rowe Brewer Solicitors 46 - 49 Church Street Twickenham TW1 3NR


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE McMULLEN QC

1. This is an appeal from a decision of a Chairman Mr John Warren sitting to give case management directions in London (South) sent to the parties on the 9^th October 2001. The case originally was brought by Miss Hook and Miss Hill. This appeal relates to the former. The first schedule to the case management directions includes an indication that the Chairman considered whether he had jurisdiction to hear Miss Hook's claim, bearing in mind the time limit under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claim is for unfair dismissal, breach of contract and disability discrimination.
2. The Applicant was employed by the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames at Hampton Community College as a support assistant. The Applicant undertook some day release during the course of that time. The issue facing the Chairman at his directions hearing was whether the governing body of Hampton Community College and the London Borough of Richmond should properly be the first and second Respondents in these proceedings and whether or not a claim against them by Miss Hook raising unfair dismissal could properly be made.
3. The Notice of Appeal claims that the Chairman erred in law by ruling that the correct test to be applied to the claim was that found in section 111 (2)(b), namely whether it was reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of the three month time limit. The Chairman was thus directing himself in accordance with reasonable practicability. It is contended that that is incorrect since the claim was properly constituted joining both Respondents within time, and all that was required was the exercise of discretion to make any necessary amendments. Miss Hook, on the 1^st September 1992 was employed by Richmond and her employment ceased on the 3^rd February 2001.
4. Her claim against Richmond was presented on the 30^th April 2001, and Hampton Community College was referred to as her place of work. On the 22^nd May 2001 the Respondent's notice maintained the correct Respondent was the Governing Body of Hampton. On that date also, Richmond notified the Tribunal it was not the correct Respondent pursuant to the Education (Modification of Enactments Relating to Employment) Order but stated that in accordance with the regulation it would wish to remain a party.
5. An application was made by Hampton to be joined as a second Respondent. On the 30^th May, Richmond wrote to the Employment Tribunal, stating that in accordance with the Regulations, applications must be made and carried on against the Governing Body and invited the Tribunal to strike out the Applicant's claim. On the 1^st of June an application was made for joinder. The claim was re-issued on the 27^th June against Richmond and Hampton.
6. On the 24^th July 2001 a decision had been made by the Chairman that Hampton be joined as a party to the proceedings. It seems to us therefore strongly arguable and thus passing our threshold test at a preliminary hearing that both the Respondents in these proceedings were properly joined as Respondents to a claim made within time and that any change in the pleadings sought at the hearing before Mr Warren should have been susceptible to the lower standard of discretion rather than the higher standard of reasonable practicability.
7. In those circumstances, the point of law identified is whether the Tribunal Chairman applied the correct test and that matter will be the subject of a full hearing.