Lynch v Centre D'Echanges Internationaux [1997] UKEAT 209_96_1206 (12 June 1997)

Lynch v Centre D'Echanges Internationaux [1997] UKEAT 209_96_1206 (12 June 1997)

The Tribunal did not err in law in refusing to extend time for the sex discrimination complaint. The Tribunal was entitled to find that the applicant had sufficient knowledge of the relevant facts by September 1994 and that the delay in bringing the claim was not justified. The Tribunal's discretion under section 76(5) is wide and not subject to the imposition of additional legal tests beyond those in the statute.

Citation
[1997] UKEAT 209_96_1206
Parties
Appellant: Ms Lynch; Respondent: Centre D'Echanges Internationaux
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
12 June 1997
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sex Discrimination, Unfair Dismissal, Limitation Periods, Extension of Time
Employment Law Discrimination Law Sex Discrimination Unfair Dismissal Limitation Periods Extension of Time

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Lynch

Appellant

Centre D'Echanges Internationaux

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in law in refusing to extend time for a sex discrimination complaint under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975
  2. 2 Whether the correct legal test was applied for extending time under section 76(5) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not err in law in refusing to extend time for the sex discrimination complaint. The Tribunal was entitled to find that the applicant had sufficient knowledge of the relevant facts by September 1994 and that the delay in bringing the claim was not justified. The Tribunal's discretion under section 76(5) is wide and not subject to the imposition of additional legal tests beyond those in the statute.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed