Mr S Singh v Currys Group Limited HELD at Sheffield ET — 2024

The tribunal identified the claimant's complaint as harassment related to race, based on two alleged racist remarks by Andrew Wroe, the claimant's branch manager at the time. The claimant said one remark was made towards him and another about a customer in his presence. The tribunal noted that the incidents were no later than 1 March 2018, when the claimant lodged a grievance about Mr Wroe's conduct, and that Mr Gillespie upheld the part of the grievance relating to the impugned remarks on 25 April 2018.

The claim form was presented on 30 June 2023, which the tribunal found was around five years out of time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. The claimant accepted that the claim was out of time, so the issue was whether time should be extended on just and equitable grounds. The tribunal accepted that the claimant may have felt ill at ease and intimidated around Mr Wroe, including from an audio recording of a conversation, but it was not persuaded that any intimidation from management prevented him from pursuing a tribunal claim after April 2018 or after Mr Wroe left in November 2019.

The tribunal also rejected the claimant's explanation based on health. It accepted that the claimant benefited from pastoral support from his temple, but held that this was not compelling medical evidence of good cause for the delay. It noted that the claimant had no sickness absence until 7 December 2020 and that there was no medical evidence showing the claimed mental health impact to the extent suggested.

On balance of prejudice, the tribunal found significant prejudice to the respondent because key witnesses had left, including Mr Watson, Mr Gillespie and Tausif Absul, memories would have faded, and it would be difficult to procure attendance of witnesses or retrieve older records. It therefore concluded that there was no satisfactory explanation for the long delay, the balance of prejudice favoured the respondent, and it was not just and equitable to extend time. The tribunal accordingly held that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the claimant's claims.