Mr A Bansal-McNulty v Queens Park Rangers Football and Athletic Club Limited and 2 others — 2023

This judgment dealt with limitation, withdrawal, and strike-out/deposit issues rather than the substantive merits of the remaining Equality Act claims. The tribunal held that Mr Bansal-McNulty's unfair dismissal claim against Queens Park Rangers Football and Athletic Club Limited was out of time. Although the judge accepted evidence that the claimant's mental health had been poor and that he had suffered a Major Depressive Disorder during the relevant period, the tribunal found that he was nonetheless well enough that it had been reasonably practicable to present an Employment Tribunal claim within the primary limitation period if he had known of his rights and wished to pursue them. The tribunal also held that, even if time had started to run later, the further delay after he instructed solicitors in January 2023 was not a reasonable further period.

By contrast, the tribunal exercised its discretion under section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 to extend time for all of the claimant's Equality Act claims against all respondents. The judge found a complete explanation for the delay: the claimant was genuinely unaware of his legal rights until January 2023, was suffering from a depressive illness, and was afraid of speaking out, particularly given his account of the calls with Chris Ramsay and the surrounding events after the allegations concerning Mr Yems. Weighing prejudice, the tribunal concluded that the prejudice to the claimant if he could not pursue the Equality Act claims significantly outweighed the prejudice caused to the respondents by the delay, notwithstanding staff departures and evidential difficulties.

The tribunal refused QPR's application to strike out, or alternatively require a deposit for, the direct race discrimination and race-related harassment claims against it. The judge described those claims as weak in some respects, particularly on the pleaded basis for inferring race discrimination by QPR, but held that they nonetheless had more than little prospect of success and did not meet the threshold for strike out or a deposit order. The tribunal also observed that the victimisation claims, especially those arising from the alleged calls on 23 April 2022, appeared relatively strong if the claimant's evidence were accepted.

As to withdrawn claims, the tribunal dismissed on withdrawal the claimant's indirect religious discrimination, direct religious discrimination, and religion-related harassment claims against QPR. It declined, however, to dismiss on withdrawal certain other withdrawn claims, including the wrongful dismissal claim and post-termination claims, because the claimant had reserved the right to pursue those matters in arbitration or the civil courts and the tribunal was satisfied there was a legitimate reason not to issue dismissal judgments in respect of them. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.