Bryant v Housing Corporation [1998] EWCA Civ 866 (21 May 1998)

Bryant v Housing Corporation [1998] EWCA Civ 866 (21 May 1998)

The Court of Appeal held that the Employment Appeal Tribunal erred in law by interfering with the Industrial Tribunal Chairman's discretionary decision, as there was no error of law or perversity. The original application did not disclose a victimisation claim, and the refusal to allow amendment out of time was within the Chairman's discretion.

Citation
[1998] EWCA Civ 866
Parties
Appellant/respondent: Mrs A J Bryant; Respondent/appellant: The Housing Corporation
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Sex Discrimination, Victimisation, Unfair Dismissal, Amendment of Pleadings, Limitation Periods
Employment Law Discrimination Law Sex Discrimination Victimisation Unfair Dismissal Amendment of Pleadings Limitation Periods

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs A J Bryant

Appellant/respondent

The Housing Corporation

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) was correct to overturn the Industrial Tribunal's refusal to allow an amendment to plead victimisation out of time
  2. 2 Whether the original application disclosed grounds for a victimisation claim
  3. 3 Whether the Industrial Tribunal Chairman erred in law in refusing to extend time for amendment

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the Employment Appeal Tribunal erred in law by interfering with the Industrial Tribunal Chairman's discretionary decision, as there was no error of law or perversity. The original application did not disclose a victimisation claim, and the refusal to allow amendment out of time was within the Chairman's discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the Employment Appeal Tribunal discharged
  • Order of the Industrial Tribunal of 19 April 1996 restored