In Person v Ms. Patel, solicitor — 2023

This was a preliminary hearing on limitation and jurisdiction, not a merits hearing. The claimant had worked for GP Homecare Limited trading as Radis Community Care from 21 June 2019 until her resignation took effect on 19 September 2021. Early conciliation ran from 27 May 2022 to 30 May 2022 and the claim form was presented on 31 May 2022. The tribunal considered claims pleaded as unfair constructive dismissal, wrongful dismissal/breach of contract, weekly rest break claims under the Working Time Regulations 1998, direct and indirect sex discrimination, and harassment related to sex.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had been absent from work for long periods and had medical evidence covering parts of that period, but it found that ill health did not prevent her from presenting the claims in time. It noted that she engaged in a grievance process between July and November 2021, resigned in September 2021, applied for alternative work, secured work with another employer by November 2021, and later applied for further roles. The tribunal also relied on the gap in the sick notes between mid-September 2021 and March 2022, and on the fact that the later notes referred mainly to physical problems rather than mental ill health.

On the dismissal and contract and Working Time claims, the tribunal held that it was reasonably feasible for the claimant to have presented the claims within the primary limitation periods. It found that her ignorance of the time limits was not reasonable, given her online research and her discussions with CAB, ACAS, and a person she understood to be a solicitor but who in fact worked for the Scottish tribunal service. It did not accept that she had been misled by ACAS in a way that prevented a timely claim.

For the discrimination and harassment complaints, the tribunal found that the alleged acts took place in July and August 2020 and that the claims were therefore about 18 months out of time. Applying the just and equitable discretion under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, and taking into account the length and reasons for the delay and the prejudice to the respondent, the tribunal refused to extend time. It noted that the complaints were inadequately particularised, memories would have faded, and key personnel had left the respondent's employment. All claims were dismissed and no award was made.