Mr K James v Sky Subscribers Services Limited — 2024

This was a preliminary hearing on the respondent's application to strike out the claim on limitation grounds, or alternatively for a deposit order. The tribunal did not determine the substantive discrimination claims. It held that the question whether the claim was presented within time, or whether time should be extended, should be decided at the final hearing.

The claimant, who the respondent accepted was disabled by reason of retinitis pigmentosa, anxiety and depression, said that from January 2015 he could not use a new customer interface system with his assistive software, was moved onto alternative duties, and ceased receiving bonus and incentive payments. The tribunal noted evidence that over the following years there were intermittent discussions about possible adjustments, occupational health referrals in 2019, a grievance raised in 2020, and a grievance appeal outcome not communicated until July 2023.

Applying the strike-out principles with caution, the tribunal concluded it was reasonably arguable that the respondent was responsible for an ongoing situation or continuing state of affairs, rather than only a series of isolated acts with continuing consequences. It also concluded this was not a clear case in which the claimant had no reasonable prospect of showing that time should be extended on a just and equitable basis, particularly given the history of promised adjustments and the claimant's disabilities. The strike-out application was therefore refused for both the section 15 and the reasonable adjustments claims.