Employment Law Advocates

The decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Allen v Jobcentre Plus raises an interesting question. It is common practice for tribunals, when dealing with a point of whether there is a continuing act which brings claims that would otherwise be out of time within their jurisdiction, to reserve the matter to the final hearing without a pre-hearing review. The reason is that claimants have to do no more than show a prima facie case at the preliminary stage, with the effect that much of the evidence is likely to be heard at the pre-hearing review, without disposing of any issues. It must then be heard all over again.

In this instance, unusually, it had been possible to conclude that no prima facie case had been made out, because the acts in question had been carried out by different colleagues and were of a completely different character from one another. This decision demonstrates that an application by a respondent for a pre-hearing review may not always be entirely futile, at least if the facts are equally favourable. Judge Birtles quite rightly rejects a submission that a tribunal is always obliged to defer the matter to a full hearing. The purpose of doing so is to avoid wasting time, not to prevent injustice to claimants.