Dr C Hill of Counsel For the v Respondent — 2022

At a preliminary hearing on 7 December 2022, Employment Judge N J Roper considered whether three claims were out of time: harassment related to the claimant's perceived dyslexia, indirect sex discrimination, and detriment arising from paternity leave under s.47C ERA 1996. The tribunal noted that the claimant's dismissal claims were said to be in time, and that a separate race-harassment allegation was not determined by this judgment.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had worsening mental health problems and medical evidence from a consultant psychiatrist indicating PTSD symptoms and disassociation. It nevertheless found no evidence that he was prevented or incapacitated from presenting the claims in time. The claimant was found to have continued working in early 2021, to have applied for other jobs, to have written a structured resignation letter on 25 June 2021, and to have pursued a grievance after that resignation letter was treated as a formal grievance.

Applying the 'reasonably practicable' test to the paternity-leave detriment claim and the 'just and equitable' discretion to the Equality Act claims, the tribunal held that none of the three claims should be extended in time. It found that the claimant had access to legal advice and knew of the ACAS early conciliation process, but had not shown that his illness or any other factor prevented an earlier presentation. The tribunal also found that the delay was not adequately explained and that the balance of prejudice did not justify extending time. All three claims were dismissed as presented out of time, and no monetary award was made.