Case 2200053/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Robison, FRU For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2200053/2019
- Decision date
- 6 January 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Norris
- Venue
- Central London
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr R Robison, FRU For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss A Kamali Servestani, had been employed by Foxtons Limited from 10 August 2015 until her summary dismissal on 22 August 2018. She presented an ACAS Early Conciliation request on the last day of the then-applicable period and received a certificate on 6 December 2018. The tribunal found that the ET1 was received on 7 January 2019, which was out of time, even though the Gmail receipt showed it had been sent seconds after midnight.
For the unfair dismissal and breach of contract complaints, Employment Judge Norris held that it was reasonably practicable to present the claims within time. The claimant was working full time at Hamptons during the relevant period, had access to the internet, knew the deadline, and had produced only a very short ET1. The tribunal rejected her evidence that medical issues and Decapeptyl side effects caused the delay, accepting only that the injections affected her well-being, not that they prevented timely presentation.
On the sex discrimination complaint, the tribunal accepted that any delay was negligible but refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis. It found there was no evidence capable of showing that Mr Horvat was influenced by sex when he dismissed the claimant, and that the allegation was really about him believing Mr Marchant's account that the claimant had released confidential information to a competitor. The tribunal also noted that the claimant no longer pursued direct race discrimination.
The claimant also sought to add allegations of sex-related and race-related harassment, but the tribunal held that those matters were much further out of time and were not supported by clear dates or detail. The sex-related allegation, that Mr Marchant told her not to be the "voice of the office", was found not to be sex-related on its face. The race-related allegations were said to have last occurred by the end of June 2018, but the tribunal found there had been no explanation for the delay in raising them. The claim was struck out and the October 2019 full merits hearing was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claim was presented out of time and that it was reasonably practicable to submit it within the limitation period. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | This was the wrongful-dismissal / notice-pay aspect of the case. The tribunal found it was out of time and reasonably practicable to present in time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal declined to extend time on a just and equitable basis, finding no good reason for the delay and that the complaint lacked merit. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- article 7 Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Bexley Community Centre v Robertson
- Rathakrishnan v Pizza Express (Restaurants) Limited
- Miller v Community Links Trust Limited
- section 33 Limitation Act 1980 factors
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.