in person (his partner, Ms Dixon, also in attendance) For the v Respondent — 2021

At the remote preliminary hearing on 16 December 2020, Employment Judge Evans considered whether a number of discrimination complaints were presented out of time. The time-barred complaints were the claimant's direct age discrimination claim, direct disability discrimination claim, discrimination arising from disability claims, and reasonable adjustment complaints tied to the Band 7 appointment process in 2017, the 2018 redundancy exercise, and the two PCPs in paragraphs 40a and 40b. The respondent accepted that the reasonable adjustment complaint in paragraph 40c was not out of time, so it was not part of the application.

The tribunal accepted that it was reasonably arguable, applying Hendricks, Aziz and Lyfar, that the pleaded matters could be linked for the purpose of a continuing act, but it ultimately held that they were not conduct extending over a period. It found that the individuals involved in the 2017 and 2018 complaints were not directly involved in the later victimisation allegations or the separate reasonable adjustment complaint about the 30 September 2019 grievance appeal, and that the different types of complaint made the continuing-act case weaker.

On the just and equitable question, the tribunal found that the main reason for delay was that the claimant hoped the internal grievance process would resolve matters, rather than a genuine belief that he could not start a tribunal claim earlier. It did not accept that his disability prevented him from presenting the claim once he had returned to normal work by around April 2019, and it found that the delay would materially prejudice the respondent because relevant witnesses had left and recollections had faded. Balancing the prejudice to both sides, the tribunal refused to extend time and struck out the time-barred claims.