Case 1800689/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Smith v The Co-operative Academies Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 1800689/2024
- Decision date
- 30 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Deeley Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with a preliminary issue under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010: whether it was just and equitable to extend time for the claimant’s disability discrimination claims. It identified the latest possible date for the reasonable adjustments complaint as 25 July 2023 and the latest possible date for the discrimination arising from disability complaint as 8 June 2023, when the final written warning was issued. The claimant presented his tribunal claim on 22 January 2024, after ACAS early conciliation between 10 November and 22 December 2023, so the relevant allegations were outside the primary three-month time limit.
In deciding whether to extend time, the tribunal applied the continuing act principles in Hendricks, the reasonable-adjustments timing approach in Fernandes, and the general just and equitable authorities including Robertson, Abertawe, Adedeji, Donald and Johnson. It considered the claimant’s explanations for delay, including union advice, his focus on applying for other jobs, his contact with ACAS, his misunderstanding about continuous service, and his mental health. The tribunal accepted that he was able to apply for jobs, attend interviews, discuss the matter with his father, speak to ACAS, and remain in contact with his union during the relevant period.
The tribunal also took account of prejudice and the merits. It said the respondent would be prejudiced by having to deal with complaints that were substantially out of time, particularly given the passage of time and the impact on witness recollection. It recorded that the claimant’s prospects of success on the existing claim were low, and that his main complaint concerned the termination of his fixed term contract while subject to an 18-month final written warning, which formed part of his proposed amendment rather than the existing claim. The tribunal concluded that it was not just and equitable to extend time, and therefore struck out the claim because it had no jurisdiction to hear it.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments complaint. The tribunal held the latest possible act was 25 July 2023, found it was presented outside the primary limitation period, refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis, and struck out the claim for lack of jurisdiction. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability complaint. The tribunal held the latest alleged act was the final written warning issued on 8 June 2023, found it was out of time, refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis, and struck out the claim for lack of jurisdiction. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s123 Equality Act 2010
- Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
- Fernandes v DWP
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Adedeji v University College Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Donald v AVC Media Enterprises Ltd
- Secretary of State for Justice v Johnson
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.