Mrs S Steinhauser (First Claimant) Mrs A Dzwigala (Second Claimant) v London Borough of Ealing Council — 2025

The tribunal recorded that both claimants were employed by the respondent at Castlebar Primary School and that their complaints concerned unpaid holiday leave/unauthorised deductions and pregnancy or maternity discrimination. It also noted that the unpaid notice pay claims had already been withdrawn. The central question at the public preliminary hearing was limitation: whether the claims were in time, whether time should be extended, and whether the out-of-time claims should be struck out or made subject to a deposit order.

For the First Claimant, the tribunal accepted that she had asked about annual leave accrued during maternity leave in June 2020, that she filed ACAS early conciliation on 8 September 2020, and that the alleged ET1 dated 19 November 2020 was not in fact filed because it bore no tribunal office name or claim number. Applying s.111(2) ERA 1996 and the authorities on 'not reasonably practicable', including Porter, Palmer and Sanders, Dedman, Wall's Meat and Entwhistle, the tribunal held that any error by her advisers did not make it not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. It also found that, after her advisers dissolved in June 2022, she did not act with sufficient promptness, waiting until January and February 2023 to restart the process. Her unauthorised deduction and holiday pay claims were therefore dismissed as time-barred.

The First Claimant's pregnancy and maternity discrimination claim was considered under s.123 Equality Act 2010 and the just and equitable authorities, including Keeble, Robertson, Caston, Chohan, Adedeji, Virdi and E v X. The tribunal accepted that the advisers' failure to file the November 2020 claim was a material factor, but held that the delay after June 2022 was not adequately explained, that the evidence would be less cogent because the School Business Manager had left and memories had faded, and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time. The same reasoning led to dismissal of the Second Claimant's claims: she had never filed ACAS early conciliation, had not made reasonable enquiries about her rights until June 2020, had relied on the First Claimant and DM Maxpol, and did not act after the firm dissolved in June 2022. The tribunal held that her unauthorised deduction, holiday pay and maternity discrimination claims were also time-barred and dismissed them.