In person For the v Respondent — 2023

At the preliminary hearing on 8 June 2023, Employment Judge Davies considered whether the claimant's March 2023 claim should be struck out on time-limit grounds. The claim arose from the respondent's non-payment of notice pay in July 2020 and its position that the claimant had been given a written contract of employment. The tribunal did not determine the merits of the alleged dishonesty, but for the purposes of the strike-out application assumed the claimant might be able to prove it at a final hearing. It also noted the claimant's mental health evidence, while observing that she had engaged coherently and persistently in the proceedings over time.

The tribunal held that the non-payment of notice pay was a single decision or act in 2020, not conduct extending over a period. It found that the respondent's later payment of £451.75 notice pay plus £97 interest in February 2023 did not convert the earlier non-payment into a continuing act. The tribunal reached the same conclusion about the respondent's assertion that the claimant had been given a written contract: that was the respondent's pleaded defence from 2020, not a policy, rule, practice, or ongoing situation capable of amounting to continuing conduct.

On the Equality Act complaints, the tribunal found there was no reasonable prospect of showing that it would be just and equitable to extend time. It took into account the length of the delay, the claimant's knowledge of the relevant facts by 2020, the absence of any meaningful explanation for the delay, and the prejudice to the respondent in adding further old complaints to already protracted proceedings. On the whistleblowing complaint, the tribunal also found there was no reasonable prospect of showing that it had not been reasonably practicable to bring the claim in time, or that a delay of more than two years was a reasonable period.

All of the complaints in issue were therefore struck out under Rule 37. The judgment did not make any remedy award.