By Sarah Mathiew

In a decision that reaffirms the importance of timely litigation in employment disputes, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (the Board) in the UK has dismissed an appeal from a decision by the Supreme Court of Mauritius. The appellant sought leave to apply for judicial review of a decision from the Employment Relations Tribunal (Employment Promotion and Protection Division) (“the Tribunal”) regarding a redundancy dispute. The Supreme Court had denied leave, citing the appellant’s failure to apply “promptly” as a primary reason.

The original case arose after the appellant company made the five co-respondents redundant on 31 October 2017 for economic and structural reasons. The co-respondents filed a complaint under section 39B of the Employment Rights Act 2008, which was subsequently referred to the Tribunal. In an award issued on 26 October 2018, the Tribunal ruled that the redundancies were unjustified, ordering the appellant to pay severance allowances to the dismissed employees.

The appellant lodged an application for judicial review six weeks later, which was challenged by the Tribunal and the co-respondents on the grounds of untimely filing and lack of a strong argument. Despite the appellant’s contention that the application was lodged within the three-month limit, the Supreme Court of Mauritius refused leave on the sole ground of promptness, not even examining the merits of the case.

On appeal, the Board emphasised that “promptness” was not equivalent to the three-month time limit, but rather, required an evaluation of the specific context and circumstances of the case. The fact that the appellant provided no explanation for the delay further weakened their case.

In dismissing the appeal, the Board stressed the public interest in ensuring that employment disputes are resolved quickly, particularly given the legislation in place. The court noted that the appellant became aware of the Tribunal’s award the day it was delivered and had ample time to consider a challenge.

The ruling signals a stern warning to litigants to act with haste and provide necessary explanations for any delays, particularly in the context of employment disputes. It underscores the primacy of timely, efficient legal processes and safeguards the rights of employees who may face financial hardship in such situations.  View the full text of the judgment here.