The Court of Appeal extended the time limit to allow an employee’s claim for discrimination in an amendment application which was originally refused by the Tribunal.
Facts
Ms Grace Bryant started working at Nestle UK Ltd (Nestle) as a Clinical Network Representative in October 2012. On 3 July 2019 she received a letter notifying her that her employment would be terminated on the ground of redundancy with effect from 28 July 2019. Later that month she submitted an internal appeal to her redundancy which was dismissed by the company.
In October 2019, Ms Bryant lodged a claim to the Industrial Tribunal in Northern Ireland against Nestle on the grounds of unfair dismissal. The following June, Nestle disclosed several documents to her in the context of the litigation. Ms Bryant then served her Replies to Notices on Nestle in which she expressed that her being let go amounted to unfair dismissal and that she believed she was discriminated against because of her age. She was then advised that if she wanted to make a claim of age discrimination, she would have to make an amendment application. Ms Bryant took this advice and lodged an amendment application to include age discrimination on the basis she was made redundant so a younger employee could take on her role.
The Tribunal found that the proposed amendment amounted to a new claim and refused to extend the time limit for presenting it. It found that Ms Bryant had always believed she was a victim of age discrimination as she had expressed this concern before but that she had deliberately ignored the statutory time limits and withheld the claim for tactical reasons so as to disadvantage Nestle.
Ms Bryant appealed against the Tribunal's refusal of her application. The issues were (i) whether there was evidence to support the Tribunal's conclusions in respect of the timing and manner of the application; and (ii) whether the decision was perverse and involved an error of law.
Decision
The Court of Appeal found that the Industrial Tribunal had erred in refusing to grant Ms Bryant’s application to amend her unfair dismissal claim to add an age discrimination claim.
While the new claim was not submitted within the time limit, Ms Bryant had made her application promptly following receipt of documentary evidence supporting the claim. The Tribunal's conclusion that she had deliberately withheld the claim for tactical reasons was unsustainable therefore the decision was unsustainable in law and the appeal was allowed.
The time limit was extended to allow the amendment to the claim and Nestle was ordered to pay Ms Bryant's costs of appeal, to be taxed in default of agreement.
The judgment is available here.
Bryant v Nestle UK Ltd [2021] NICA 34, 4 June 2021