Shand v Leicestershire County Council & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 226 (26 January 2001)

Shand v Leicestershire County Council & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 226 (26 January 2001)

In the circumstances of this case, there was no procedural unfairness in the Employment Tribunal's decision to refuse an extension of time under section 68(6) without inviting further submissions, as the applicant was represented by an experienced advocate who did not seek to rely on the provision or object to the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 226
Parties
Appellant: Franklin Emanuel Shand; Respondent: Leicestershire County Council; Respondent: Leicester City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 January 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Limitation Periods, Procedural Fairness, Extension of Time
Employment Law Discrimination Law Race Discrimination Limitation Periods Procedural Fairness Extension of Time

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Franklin Emanuel Shand

Appellant

Leicestershire County Council

Respondent

Leicester City Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal acted with procedural unfairness by deciding the extension of time issue under section 68(6) of the Race Relations Act 1976 without inviting submissions from the parties
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in refusing to extend time for out-of-time allegations of race discrimination

Ratio Decidendi

In the circumstances of this case, there was no procedural unfairness in the Employment Tribunal's decision to refuse an extension of time under section 68(6) without inviting further submissions, as the applicant was represented by an experienced advocate who did not seek to rely on the provision or object to the process.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs