Case 1402812/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Hesketh v Avon Fire and Rescue — 2023
- Case reference
- 1402812/2021
- Decision date
- 17 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cuthbert Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Hesketh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing on whether the claimant's final alleged act of discrimination, namely his alleged discriminatory constructive dismissal on 24 February 2021, had been presented out of time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and, if so, whether time should be extended. The tribunal found that the claim was on its face out of time: the claimant resigned on 24 February 2021, the ACAS Early Conciliation period ran from 24 February 2021 to 7 April 2021, and the extended deadline was 4 July 2021. The ET1 was presented on 9 August 2021, making it one month and five days late.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had waited for the outcome of a grievance process connected to his resignation and had mistakenly assumed that time would run from receipt of that outcome. It found from the emails in the bundle that he was genuinely chasing the grievance response, both directly and through his FBU representative, and that his ignorance of the time limit was just within the bounds of reasonableness. The tribunal also accepted that he had contact with Acas and the FBU, but not with FBU lawyers, and that he acted promptly once he realised the claim was out of time.
The claimant's mental health was treated as background rather than the primary explanation for the delay. The tribunal noted contemporaneous references to stress, anxiety and suicidal thoughts in emails, and recorded that the respondent had conceded on 11 March 2022 that the claimant was disabled by reason of wrist/arm pain, fibromyalgia, anxiety and depression during his employment. However, there was no medical evidence before the preliminary hearing showing the claimant's state of health between April and August 2021, and the judge found that health was not the central reason for the delay.
Applying the broad just and equitable discretion under section 123, and having regard to the absence of forensic prejudice, the fact that relevant witnesses were still employed, and the proximity of the listed full hearing in June 2023, the tribunal exercised its discretion in the claimant's favour. Time was therefore extended so that the final alleged act of discrimination could proceed to the full liability hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary ruling only: the tribunal extended time on a just and equitable basis for the final alleged act of discrimination, described as the claimant's alleged discriminatory constructive dismissal on 24 February 2021. The merits of the underlying discrimination complaints were not determined. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension
- Robertson v Bexley
- Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v Caston
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Southwark London Borough Council v Afolabi
- Department of Constitutional Affairs v Jones
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.