Post Office v Hogan [1992] UKEAT 117_92_1304 (13 April 1992)

Post Office v Hogan [1992] UKEAT 117_92_1304 (13 April 1992)

The Tribunal erred in law in identifying the date of written confirmation as the start of the limitation period, but was entitled to extend time under the just and equitable discretion due to the slow process of the Post Office. The amendment to the Originating Application was permissible but should substitute, not add to, the original complaint. Only the complaint regarding the investigation of the December 1989 incident is in time; earlier matters are out of time.

Citation
[1992] UKEAT 117_92_1304
Parties
Appellant: Post Office; Respondent: Mr Hogan
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
13 April 1992
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Tribunal Preliminary Jurisdiction Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; order of Tribunal varied
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal, Limitation Period, Amendment of Pleadings
Employment Law Equality Law Race Discrimination Jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal Limitation Period Amendment of Pleadings

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Post Office

Appellant

Mr Hogan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Tribunal Preliminary Jurisdiction Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear Mr Hogan's complaint as it was allegedly out of time under the Race Relations Act 1976
  2. 2 Whether the amendment to the Originating Application was permissible
  3. 3 Whether the time for bringing the complaint should be extended under the just and equitable discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in law in identifying the date of written confirmation as the start of the limitation period, but was entitled to extend time under the just and equitable discretion due to the slow process of the Post Office. The amendment to the Originating Application was permissible but should substitute, not add to, the original complaint. Only the complaint regarding the investigation of the December 1989 incident is in time; earlier matters are out of time.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; order of Tribunal varied

Orders

  • Amendment to Originating Application to be a substitution, not an addition
  • Particulars of the complaint to be provided as directed by the court