There are fairly strict time limits for lodging a claim with an employment tribunal, although in certain circumstances they can be extended if it's 'just and equitable to do so'. In Chohan v Derby Law Centre (2004, IRLR 685), the tribunal didn't think it was but the employment appeal tribunal (EAT) has just disagreed. The case was backed by Thompsons.
What were the facts?
Ms Chohan was a trainee solicitor at the law centre, giving advice on employment law. She was, however, dismissed from her job, after which she claimed sex discrimination and unfair dismissal.
Her complaints were resolved following the intervention of the arbitration service, ACAS, and she signed a compromise agreement to that effect on 18 April 2002.
However, on 23 April 2002, she got a letter from the Law Society saying that it had been informed by the law centre that her training contract had been terminated. She finally received a copy of the letter that the centre had written (dated 22 March) on 30 April.
She then claimed that the letter from the law centre, containing details of how her employment had come to an end, amounted to an act of victimisation. For its part, the centre argued that it was under a professional duty to report her dismissal, that the terms of the letter were a fair representation of the facts and that the compromise agreement prevented her from pursuing a victimisation claim.
What did the tribunal decide?
The tribunal said that the compromise agreement did no such thing. Unfortunately for Ms Chohan, however, it also decided that her claim was out of time. As it had not been presented until 9 July 2002, she was 18 days over the three months' limit which started on 22 March.
In her defence, Ms Chohan said she had been wrongly advised by her solicitor who had told her that time would start to run from the date she got the letter, and not the date on which it was written.
She asked the tribunal to exercise its discretion to extend the time limit so that her claim could go ahead, on the basis that she had been waiting to find out what the Office of the Supervision of Solicitors had to say about the termination of her training contract, and whether it intended to investigate the matter further.
The tribunal refused. It reasoned that her solicitor was a senior employment lawyer and that she herself was legally trained and that therefore it would not be 'just and equitable' to extend the time limit.
What did the parties argue on appeal?
Ms Chohan appealed on the basis that she should not be penalised for her solicitor's bad advice, and that the law centre would not suffer any prejudice by allowing her claim to go ahead (except that it would be involved in the proceedings).
The law centre, on the other hand, argued that the tribunal had applied the law correctly and that its decision could not be described as perverse.
What did the EAT decide?
The employment appeal tribunal (EAT) decided that it was just and equitable to extend the time limit. The tribunal had been wrong to ignore Ms Chohan's point that she was waiting for a decision from the Law Society. Although most applicants don't succeed in their claim for an extension of time if they wait for an internal procedure to be exhausted, the EAT felt that 'in the regulated regime of solicitors' contracts, the situation may well be different.'
It also felt that poor legal advice should not automatically defeat her argument. Even though she was a trainee solicitor in employment matters, she was still entitled to entrust the running of her case to another experienced solicitor and rely on the advice that she was given.
The case was remitted to a tribunal to hear her victimisation claim.