Fontan v Teletech UK Ltd

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant applied for a customer service representative position with the Respondent and was offered the job in December 2010, commencing employment in January 2011 under a probationary contract allowing termination on one week's notice during the first 12 weeks. The Applicant was informed of a mandatory assessment at the end of training, which she initially failed, scoring 58%, and after resitting scored 29%. Consequently, she was dismissed on 21 January 2011. An internal appeal was unsuccessful. The Applicant issued a claim in the Industrial Tribunal alleging wrongful dismissal and age discrimination, asserting unfair treatment related to the assessment process and alleging she was the oldest trainee and treated less favourably. The Tribunal rejected her claims in December 2011. The Applicant sought a review which was declined, then applied for an extension of time to appeal, lodging a notice of appeal in July 2012, beyond the six-week appeal period prescribed by court rules.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Applicant should be granted an extension of time to lodge an appeal against the Industrial Tribunal’s decision dismissing her claims.
2. Whether the Applicant’s claims of wrongful dismissal and age discrimination had sufficient legal merit to justify such an extension.
3. Whether the Tribunal’s factual findings, particularly regarding the assessment results and alleged discriminatory treatment, were legally erroneous.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant did not lodge the appeal within time because her application for a review of the Tribunal’s decision was outstanding.
• She alleged unfair treatment in the assessment process, including that the test was manipulated to fail her and pass others, and that the test did not reflect her true ability due to medication-induced impairment.
• The Applicant claimed the Respondent’s trainer had prior knowledge of the test questions and that an email produced by the Respondent was fraudulent.
• She asserted age discrimination, being the oldest trainee, and that the Respondent maintained a younger age average in its call centre workforce.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent maintained that the Applicant was dismissed lawfully under the probationary contract due to poor performance.
• They denied any manipulation of the assessment process and provided evidence that other older trainees passed the test.
• The Respondent argued the Tribunal’s factual findings were correct and that the Applicant’s criticisms were merely disagreements with fact-finding.
• They indicated no prejudice would arise from granting an extension of time, but emphasized the Applicant’s failure to comply with procedural rules.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court applied established legal principles from precedent concerning extensions of time for appeals, focusing on whether the delay was satisfactorily explained and whether justice required an extension. The Applicant’s failure to lodge the appeal within the prescribed six-week period was not adequately justified by the pending review application. Although the Applicant is a personal litigant, adherence to procedural rules is mandatory. The Respondent would not be prejudiced by an extension, but the Applicant had already had a full hearing on the merits, and the points raised on appeal were primarily challenges to factual findings rather than substantive legal issues. The court found no error of law in the Tribunal’s assessment of evidence, including the handling of the contested email and the evaluation of the Applicant’s performance. Allegations of manipulation of the test and age discrimination were unsupported by evidence. The contract permitted dismissal on grounds of poor performance during probation. Therefore, no arguable legal case justified extending the appeal period.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the application for an extension of time to lodge an appeal.

The direct consequence is that the Applicant’s appeal against the Industrial Tribunal’s decision is not permitted to proceed. No new legal precedent was established, and the decision reinforces the importance of strict compliance with procedural time limits and the limited circumstances under which extensions may be granted, particularly where the appeal raises no substantial point of law and follows a full merits hearing.