Jean Sorelle Ltd v Rybak
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 08 November 1990 |
| Date | 08 November 1990 |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Before Mr Justice Knox, Mr A C Blyghton and Mr L D Cowan
Employment - unfair dismissal - erroneous advice
There was no general principle that a claimant could not rely on erroneous advice from a third party to establish that it was not reasonably practicable to present a complaint of unfair dismissal within the time limits prescribed by section 67(2) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.
There was a clear factual difference between advice from a member of industrial tribunal staff, as in the present case, and from a solicitor or a citizens advice bureau adviser and it was open to an industrial tribunal to hold that it was not reasonably practicable for the complainant to have presented her complaint in time.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal so held when dismissing an appeal by the employers, Jean Sorelle Ltd, from a decision of a London industrial tribunal in November 1989 on a preliminary issue of law that they had jurisdiction to hear a complaint of unfair dismissal by Miss J Rybak.
The appeal was on the ground that the industrial tribunal had erred in law in treating advice from an industrial tribunal employee as being in a different category from advice from a solicitor or CAB adviser.
Section 67 provides: "(2) … An industrial tribunal shall not consider a complaint under this section unless it is presented to the tribunal before the end of the period of three months beginning with the effective date of termination or within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of the period of three months."
Mr Andrew Lydiard for the employers; Miss Rybak in person.
MR JUSTICE KNOX said the complainant was dismissed on June 2, 1989. The last day for presenting her complaint was September 1, and it was presented on September 2 one day out of time.
On August 23, 1989 she had consulted the CAB when she was told by a non-legal officer that her complaint had to be received by September 2. That advice was incorrect.
The officer subsequently telephoned the industrial tribunal and spoke to an employee who told him that the final date for presentation was September 2, a Saturday, and that the complaint need not be presented until the following Monday, September 4. That was also incorrect.
The industrial tribunal found that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mr T Sidowra v Sense Scotland: 4105410/2022
...prevent a claimant from showing that it was not reasonably practicable to present his/her claim in time. In Rybak v Jean Sorelle Ltd 1991 ICR 127 the EAT held that incorrect advice from a Tribunal about the final date for lodging a claim had rendered it not reasonably practicable for the cl......
-
Mr K Moss v KJ Services Ltd: 1601652/2022
...1601652/2022 16. It can also be relevant if a claimant has been given incorrect advice by tribunal or Acas staff: Rybak v Jean Sorelle Ltd 1991 ICR 127, Complaints about back payments of holiday pay are normally brought under the Employment Rights Act because of the ability to bring a compl......
-
Ms N McHugh v Dr William Arnett: 2500597/2017
...The tribunal held it had not been reasonably practicable to present in time. On appeal, the EAT noted that in Rybak v Jean Sorelle Ltd 1991 ICR 127, EAT, and London International College Ltd v Sen 1993 IRLR 333, CA claimants who had been wrongly advised by tribunal employees had successfull......
-
Mr M Lukosius v Gallowglass Security Ltd: 2303102/2019
...people, such as CAB workers, jobcentre staff, or tribunal staff. Here the position is slightly different. In Rybak v Jean Sorelle Ltd 1991 ICR 127, the Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed a late claim where a tribunal employee mistakenly told the employee that because the last date fell on a......