Mr P Rush v Wilts & Dorset Bus Company Limited t/a Morebus — 2025

This was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Murdoch sitting alone on 25 March 2025. The claimant, Mr P Rush, brought claims of unfair dismissal and direct race discrimination against Wilts & Dorset Bus Company Limited t/a Morebus. The tribunal recorded that the relevant date for both claims was the dismissal on 7 February 2024, and that the ordinary deadline was 22 May 2024. Although the claimant emailed a claim form on 3 May 2024, it was not a prescribed method of presentation, and the claim was later deemed presented on 29 July 2024 after the wrong ACAS certificate had been attached and then corrected.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal applied the section 111 ERA 1996 "not reasonably practicable" test. It found that the claimant had not shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. The tribunal rejected the explanation that delay was caused by the respondent's delay in providing CCTV footage, noting that the claimant had already seen the footage during the disciplinary and appeal process and could have withdrawn the claim if later receipt of footage changed his position. The tribunal also noted that the claimant had previously brought Employment Tribunal claims in 2021 and 2022 and had self-studied employment law and tribunal time limits, so it remained reasonably practicable for him to submit the claim correctly within the three-month period.

The tribunal also considered whether time should be extended on the "just and equitable" basis for the race discrimination claim. It held that the length of the delay, measured from the due date to the deemed presentation date, was more than two months and was not insignificant. The reason for delay was not accepted as good, and although the respondent was not found to suffer significant prejudice because the investigation and disciplinary process had been documented, that did not justify an extension. The tribunal therefore held that both claims were out of time, time was not extended under either statutory test, and both claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.