Mrs Bartlett, in person For the v Mr T Poole, Queen’s Counsel — 2021

This was a preliminary hearing on limitation only. The claimant alleged sex discrimination and sexual harassment by a senior manager. The tribunal accepted that the last alleged act was, at the latest, when she moved roles in April 2016. On that basis, the claim should have been presented by July 2016. It was not presented until 8 July 2020, after ACAS early conciliation had begun on 3 July 2020, so the claim was about four years out of time and did not benefit from any extension under the early conciliation provisions.

The claimant said she had not raised the sexual harassment allegations in her 2016 grievance because of embarrassment and concern that she would not be believed. The tribunal accepted that the incidents were distressing and that she had faith in the respondent's internal processes, and it accepted that she believed she should wait for those processes to be completed. It also accepted that the claimant was reluctant to speak out and that the events affected her work life and life outside work.

However, the tribunal found the delay was significant and not well explained. It noted that the claimant knew of the Employment Tribunal route, had been aware of it since at least 2016, and did not make enquiries about bringing a claim until much later. The tribunal did not accept that the claimant's expectation that the respondent would provide redress after the senior manager was dismissed in 2018 was reasonable on the evidence before it. It also noted that there was no indication that the respondent had told her it would deal with any tribunal claim or that she had asked for the grievance to be reopened during the relevant period.

The tribunal placed substantial weight on prejudice to the respondent. The allegations spanned 2008 to April 2016, most were not witnessed, several potential witnesses were no longer employed, including the alleged perpetrator, and the passage of time meant there was likely to be little documentary evidence left. The tribunal concluded that the respondent would face significant forensic prejudice in investigating the allegations and in running its jurisdictional and merits defences. Balancing the prejudice to both sides, it was not just and equitable to extend time, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction and the claims were struck out.