Odukoya v Hopkins & Ors (Jurisdictional Points : Claim in time and effective date of termination : Extension of time: just and equitable) [2017] UKEAT 0251_16_0203 (02 March 2017)

Odukoya v Hopkins & Ors (Jurisdictional Points : Claim in time and effective date of termination : Extension of time: just and equitable) [2017] UKEAT 0251_16_0203 (02 March 2017)

Employment Judge Glennie erred in finding that allegations 12 and 14 were not made against Mr Hopkins; the appeal on the time limit issue succeeds and is remitted for reconsideration. However, the Judge's decision not to extend time for claims against Mr Hopkins and Redsnapper was not perverse or erroneous in law and stands.

Citation
[2017] UKEAT 0251_16_0203
Parties
Appellant: Oluremilekun Odukoya; First Respondent: Tim Hopkins; Second Respondent: The Charity Commission; Third Respondent: Redsnapper Recruitment Ltd
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
02 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Jurisdictional Time Limits, Extension of Time, Discrimination, Victimisation
Employment Law Equality Law Jurisdictional Time Limits Extension of Time Discrimination Victimisation

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oluremilekun Odukoya

Appellant

Tim Hopkins

First Respondent

The Charity Commission

Second Respondent

Redsnapper Recruitment Ltd

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim against Mr Hopkins was brought within the primary three month time limit under section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
  2. 2 Whether it was just and equitable to extend time for claims against Mr Hopkins and Redsnapper under section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010

Ratio Decidendi

Employment Judge Glennie erred in finding that allegations 12 and 14 were not made against Mr Hopkins; the appeal on the time limit issue succeeds and is remitted for reconsideration. However, the Judge's decision not to extend time for claims against Mr Hopkins and Redsnapper was not perverse or erroneous in law and stands.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part

Orders

  • Remit the question of time limit for claims against Mr Hopkins to a fresh Tribunal
  • Dismiss appeal against refusal to extend time for claims against Redsnapper