Mr Ralph Hadley v Haier Smart Home UK & I Limited — 2025

Mr Ralph Hadley was dismissed by Haier Smart Home UK & I Limited on 31 March 2024, aged 71, after consultation about redundancy. The tribunal found that the primary time limit for an unfair dismissal complaint expired on 30 June 2024 and that Mr Hadley did not contact ACAS until 19 July 2024. It accepted that he had surgery on 26 April 2024 and further emergency treatment on 29 April 2024, but found that by around late May 2024 he was in a position to take steps and that illness did not explain the failure to act during the rest of May or in June.

For the unfair dismissal complaint, the tribunal applied section 111 ERA 1996 and the reasonable practicability test. It found that Mr Hadley became aware, by around 20 May 2024, of the BBC report about the factory closure and of an ex gratia payment said to have been offered to other employees, but that this did not make it not reasonably practicable for him to bring the claim in time. The tribunal also found that his lack of action was not explained by ignorance of rights, because he could have contacted his union or made internet enquiries, and that waiting for a response from the Respondent or his union did not justify missing the deadline. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore dismissed.

For direct age discrimination, the tribunal applied section 123 EqA 2010 and the just and equitable test. It noted that the complaint was based on the dismissal on 31 March 2024 and that time was not extended. In assessing the balance of prejudice and the merits, the tribunal considered that Mr Hadley had advanced no more than the fact of his age and dismissal, while the Respondent had a potentially cogent non-discriminatory explanation based on redundancy. It concluded that it would not be just and equitable to extend time, so the age discrimination complaint was dismissed.

The tribunal also refused Mr Hadley's applications to amend his claim to add breach of contract and age-related harassment. Applying the Selkent and Vaughan principles on the balance of injustice and hardship, it found that the proposed breach of contract claim was weak and brought further out of time, and that the age-related harassment complaint was even further out of time, related to alleged comments said to have occurred over an extended period, and had not been raised in the claim form. No monetary award was made.