[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Kent v Do It All Ltd [1999] UKEAT 1236_98_1702 (17 February 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/1236_98_1702.html Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 1236_98_1702

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR A CLARKE QC (of Counsel) Appearing under the Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme and MR KENT (Appellant's Husband)


 


MR JUSTICE CHARLES: In this appeal the parties are a Mrs R. Kent and Do It All Ltd. The matter comes before us on a preliminary hearing. The appeal is against the decision of an Industrial Tribunal, the Chairman sitting alone, that Mrs Kent's claims which in her IT1 are described as unfair dismissal because of disability, were not in time and therefore the proceedings should be struck out.

In his decision the Chairman referred to two time limits, namely one in Section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the other a just and equitable time limit to be found in the Disability Discrimination Act 1996 (I think in one of the schedules).

Argument was presented to us and indeed, our consideration of the case before that argument had been directed to the application of the time limits and an error in dates made in the original Extended Reasons.

On further consideration and discussion it is apparent that we and indeed, everybody else in this case has been looking firmly at the wrong ball. The problem is that the Disability Discrimination Act did not come into force until 2 December 1996. The relevant dismissal in this case was in 1995 and thus at a time when the Act was not in force. As soon as one gets to that point, one then looks at the length of the employment which began on 21 August 1995 and ended on 1 September 1995 with the result that the two year qualifying time limit is not met and therefore, whatever may be the position as to extending time, there is no claim that can be brought. For those reasons, which are not connected with the original decision below we will dismiss this appeal.

Again we would thank Mr Clarke and indeed, Mr Kent, for the submissions they have made to us. We are grateful to Mr Clarke as should both Mr and Mrs Kent be.