Lewisham and Guys Mental Health NHS Trust v Andrews (Deceased)
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 26 March 1999 |
| Date | 26 March 1999 |
| Court | Court of Session |
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Before Mr Justice Morison, Mr R Jackson and Mrs R A Vickers
Race discrimination - deceased's estate cannot continue claim
There was no provision in the Race Relations Act 1976 for an applicant's claim of unlawful discrimination to be continued after his death by his estate.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal so held when allowing an appeal by Lewisham and Guys Mental Health NHS Trust from a decision of a chairman of an industrial tribunal sitting at London (South) last December appointing the daughter of the deceased applicant, the late Mrs Marcia Andrews, as the appropriate person to proceed with the claim.
The trust, the employers, had appealed on the ground that the industrial tribunal's powers were determined by statute and in the absence of any statutory authority the tribunal had no inherent jurisdiction to allow the claim to proceed.
Mr Andrew Rowland, solicitor, for the trust; Mr John Crosfill, assigned by the Free Representation Unit, for the daughter.
MR JUSTICE MORISON said that the applicant's complaint of discrimination was received by the industrial tribunal on April 6, 1998 and she died on August 23.
Her family wished to continue with the discrimination complaint. The chairman of the industrial tribunal held that a personal representative could proceed.
The employers submitted on appeal that whereas statutory provisions in section 206 and 207 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, permitted a personal representative of a deceased person to continue a claim or start proceedings for unfair dismissal after his death there was no comparable provision in either the Race Relations Act 1976 or the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
They also submitted that it was a general principle that where a party to legal proceedings died those proceedings abated unless another person could, by virtue of the express terms of a statute or rules of court, take them forward.
They said there was no power conferred on tribunals to substitute the estate for a person making a complaint of unlawful discrimination, and accordingly, the tribunal had no jurisdiction.
The appeal tribunal concluded that section 1(1) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934, provided that causes of action might survive for the benefit of or against the estate of the deceased so as to include rights of action founded on breaches of contractual obligations or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Sisu Capital Fund Ltd v Tucker
-
Serious Organised Crime Agency v Gale and another
...the evidence which proved the case against him. For the reasons which I have given, I would regard it as eminently just. Re Re: Andrews [1999] 1 WLR 1236 105 A receiver was appointed under s77(8) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which provided that where a restraint order was made “… the ......
-
Crown Prosecution Service v Eastenders Group
...property of the defendant (or prospective defendant) and ought never to have been put into the hands of the receiver. In In re Andrews [1999] 1 WLR 1236 a father and son were prosecuted for VAT fraud. In the course of the proceedings restraint and receivership orders were made against them......
-
Crown Prosecution Service v Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc and Others
... ... reluctance) by the Court of Appeal in Re Andrews [1999] 1 WLR 1236 , a case of alleged VAT and ... ...