Osborne v Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Trust [2009] UKEAT 0549_08_3103 (31 March 2009)

Osborne v Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Trust [2009] UKEAT 0549_08_3103 (31 March 2009)

The Employment Judge failed to provide adequate reasoning and did not demonstrate consideration or weighing of relevant factors for extending time, particularly the claimant's promptness and adviser error, thus the decision does not meet the required standard for reasoned judgments.

Citation
[2009] UKEAT 0549_08_3103
Parties
Claimant: Annette Osborne; Respondent: The Trust
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
31 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Employment Tribunal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Extend Time for Disability Discrimination Claim
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Extension of Time, Adequacy of Reasoning, Jurisdiction
Employment Law Discrimination Law Disability Discrimination Extension of Time Adequacy of Reasoning Jurisdiction

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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Annette Osborne

Claimant

The Trust

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Extend Time for Disability Discrimination Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was just and equitable to extend time for the disability discrimination claim
  2. 2 Adequacy of tribunal's reasoning
  3. 3 Prejudice to respondent due to unavailable witnesses

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Judge failed to provide adequate reasoning and did not demonstrate consideration or weighing of relevant factors for extending time, particularly the claimant's promptness and adviser error, thus the decision does not meet the required standard for reasoned judgments.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Matter remitted to Employment Tribunal for fresh determination as to jurisdiction to determine the disability discrimination claim