Rodrigues v Co-Operative Group Ltd (Practice and Procedure : Striking-out or dismissal) [2012] UKEAT 0022_12_1707 (17 July 2012)

Rodrigues v Co-Operative Group Ltd (Practice and Procedure : Striking-out or dismissal) [2012] UKEAT 0022_12_1707 (17 July 2012)

The Employment Judge was entitled to find that the acts complained of were separate and distinct, not conduct extending over a period, and thus time barred except for the last incident. The claimant failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the delay in presenting the claim, so it was not just and equitable to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] UKEAT 0022_12_1707
Parties
Appellant: Claimant (name not specified); Respondent: Co-operative Group Ltd
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
17 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision After Pre Hearing Review
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Time Bar, Strike Out, Extension of Time, Jurisdictional Points
Employment Law Equality Law Race Discrimination Time Bar Strike Out Extension of Time Jurisdictional Points

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant (name not specified)

Appellant

Co-operative Group Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision After Pre Hearing Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the alleged acts constituted conduct extending over a period for the purposes of time limits under the Equality Act 2010
  2. 2 Whether it was just and equitable to extend the time limit for presenting the claim
  3. 3 Whether the claim had no reasonable prospects of success and should be struck out

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Judge was entitled to find that the acts complained of were separate and distinct, not conduct extending over a period, and thus time barred except for the last incident. The claimant failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the delay in presenting the claim, so it was not just and equitable to extend time. The claim that survived the time bar was properly struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success due to the unreliability of the claimant's evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order dismissing the appeal