[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Sullivan v. Willis Corroon Group [2001] UKEAT 0660_01_1510 (15 October 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/0660_01_1510.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 660_1_1510, [2001] UKEAT 0660_01_1510

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	NO APPEARANCE OR REPRESENTATION BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT


 


HIS HONOUR JUDGE J R REID QC

1. Mrs Sullivan is not present on this Preliminary Hearing. She seeks to appeal from a Striking Out Order made by the Employment Tribunal Chairman, Mr John Thomas.
2. The background to her claim is that she says that she was excluded from membership from her employer, Willis Corroon Group's, pension scheme by reason of her status as a part-time worker and that that was contrary to law. Her employment ended on 31 December 1992. The proceedings which she launched were launched on 12 December 1994, at least that was when it was received by the Tribunal, but the form is dated 9 December 1994. Thereafter her case was caught up with a great number of other cases in litigation which went to Europe and to the House of Lords relating to pensions for part-time workers and the discrimination that could result from part-time workers being excluded. Those proceedings were eventually concluded and the matter came back to life, so to speak, but it was then struck out on 15 March 2001 on the basis that the time limit for bringing her complaint had been 6 months from the ending of her employment, and that there was no provision for extending that time limit.
3. That striking out was in line with the decision of the European Court in Preston v Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2000] ICR. The relevant passage is in these terms, at page 996, paragraph 35 of the judgment:

"The answer to the first part of the first question must therefore be that Community law does not preclude national procedural rule which requires that a claim for membership of an occupational pension scheme (from which the right to pension benefits flows) must, if it is not to be time-barred, be brought within six months of the end of the employment to which the claim relates, provided, however, that that limitation period is not less favourable for actions based on Community law than for those based on domestic law."

The Chairman correctly applied that determination of the European Court and struck out the claim.

4. The Notice of Appeal does not seek to distinguish this case from others falling within the rule. The grounds are set out simply in these terms:

"The grounds upon which this appeal is brought are that the employment tribunal erred in law in that as a part-time secretary with Willis Corroon Group from December 1971 until 1988 when I was admitted into their pension scheme I was illegally excluded from the pension scheme on the grounds of sexual discrimination."

As will have been observed, those grounds of appeal do not address the decision, or the reasons for the decision, and do not give any indication of any ground on which an appeal could be successfully argued at a Full Hearing. It is our view that the decision of the Chairman was entirely right and the appeal will therefore be dismissed at this stage.