Ojikutu v London Borough of Camden
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE RIMER
- LORD JUSTICE AIKENS
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant, a solicitor formerly employed by Camden, challenged the dismissal of her claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination by the Employment Tribunal. Her appeal to the EAT was rejected for lack of reasonable grounds. She later filed a fresh notice of appeal one day late due to an arithmetic error and sought an extension, but this was refused by both the Registrar and Judge Serota, QC, due to lack of exceptional circumstances and disbelief in her stress explanation affecting the calculation. The court upheld the strict approach of EAT on extensions of time.
J U D G M E N T
LORD JUSTICE RIMER : The appellant is Temitope Ojikutu. She is a solicitor who was formerly employed as a senior housing lawyer by the respondent, the London Borough of Camden (“Camden”). The appellant was dismissed by Camden in March 2011. She then brought a number of claims against Camden in the employment tribunal for unfair dismissal, breach of contract, public interest disclosure detriment, and age, sex and race discrimination. Her claims were heard by the London Central Employment Tribunal (Judge Ms A Steward, Mr M Simon and Miss S.K. Sootarsing, “the ET”) over some ten days in April 2012. The outcome that was that by a judgment sent with reasons to the parties on 18 July 2012, all the appellant's claims were dismissed.
By a notice of appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“the EAT”), filed with the EAT on 29 August 2012, the appellant sought to appeal against the ET's judgment on six grounds. They were directed at challenging the decision that the appellant had been fairly dismissed and the rejection of her race discrimination and victimisation claims, and included challenges to certain of the ET's findings of fact as being allegedly perverse.
The notice of appeal came before Underhill J (the President), as he then was, on the paper "sift". By a decision on the papers dated 25 October 2012, he ruled that none of the six grounds of appeal disclosed any reasonable ground for bringing the appeal. His ruling, in accordance with Rule 3(7) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993, was to the effect that no further action was to be taken on the appellant's notice of appeal.
The EAT’s notice to the appellant informing her of Underhill J's decision drew her attention to Rules 3(8) and (10) of the 1993 rules. The latter entitled her, within 28 days of 25 October 2012, when the EAT's letter to was sent to her, to express to the EAT her dissatisfaction with Underhill J's reasons for his opinion, upon which event she would then have been entitled to an oral hearing before an EAT judge at which she would have had the opportunity to submit why, despite such adverse ruling on the papers, she ought nevertheless to be allowed to process her appeal to a full hearing on one or more grounds. The appellant did not take this course.
Rule 3(8), which, under the then applicable Rules, offered her an alternative course, provides materially as follows:
"Where notification has been given under paragraph (7), the appellant ... may serve a fresh noti