Mr W Choudhry 1st v HSBC UK Bank plc 2nd Respondent: Mohammed Usman Habas Elahi 3rd Respondent: Lorena Lekegegaj 4th Respondent: Faryl Sajd Shafique 5th Respondent: Aisha Sulaiman — 2023

At the open preliminary hearing on 7 March 2023, Employment Judge Hindmarch dealt first with the respondents' time-limit objection. The claimant brought claims of harassment and victimisation. The harassment allegations concerned 11 acts said to have occurred while he was training with the first respondent between December 2019 and March 2020. The victimisation allegation concerned an informal verbal warning given on 11 June 2021, said to have been issued in response to a grievance raised on 24 May 2021.

Applying section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal held that the claims were out of time. It found that the allegations were not a continuing act: harassment and victimisation are different forms of discrimination, different people were involved, and the matters were about 15 months apart, so they were not an ongoing situation or continuing state of affairs. On that basis, the harassment allegations were about 18 months out of time and the victimisation allegation about 3 months out of time.

The tribunal then considered whether it was just and equitable to extend time, referring to Bexley Community Centre (t/a Leisure Link) v Robertson, Bodhu v Hampshire Health Authority, Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner and Lyfar v Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals Trust. It accepted the claimant's explanation that he did not know the time limits, but found that ignorance was not enough in the circumstances, that there was no evidence the bank had misled him, and that he had been able to pursue ACAS and the grievance process. It also held that the delay prejudiced the respondents because the allegations dated back to 2019, memories would have faded, and witnesses had moved on.

Time was not extended and the claim was dismissed.