Polystar Plastic Limited v M Liepa

Polystar Plastic Limited v M Liepa

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to properly engage with and explain its assessment of the reason for the claimant's delay and by misapplying the burden of proof regarding the claimant's belief. The only permissible conclusion on the facts was that the claimant had not established a reasonable belief or a good reason for the delay. However, the question of whether it is just and equitable to extend time remains open and must be remitted to the Tribunal for determination.

Parties
Appellant: Polystar Plastics Ltd; Respondent: Mr M Liepa
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed; Employment Tribunal's judgment set aside; issue of just and equitable extension remitted to Tribunal
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Limitation Period, Just and Equitable Extension, Equality Act 2010, Procedural Fairness
Employment Law Discrimination Law Race Discrimination Limitation Period Just and Equitable Extension Equality Act 2010 Procedural Fairness

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Polystar Plastics Ltd

Appellant

Mr M Liepa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in extending time for a race discrimination claim under section 123(1) Equality Act 2010
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal misapplied the burden of proof regarding the claimant's belief and reasonableness for delay
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision to extend time

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to properly engage with and explain its assessment of the reason for the claimant's delay and by misapplying the burden of proof regarding the claimant's belief. The only permissible conclusion on the facts was that the claimant had not established a reasonable belief or a good reason for the delay. However, the question of whether it is just and equitable to extend time remains open and must be remitted to the Tribunal for determination.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; Employment Tribunal's judgment set aside; issue of just and equitable extension remitted to Tribunal

Orders

  • Employment Tribunal's judgment set aside
  • Findings substituted that claimant had not established a reasonable belief or good reason for delay up to 12 May 2022