In person For the v Respondent — 2024

The claimant brought claims arising from his employment by AtkinsRealis UK Ltd as a Senior Consultant from 25 July 2022 to 1 February 2023, mainly in relation to work on the Heathrow Sprint Project, the extension of his probation and his dismissal. At a preliminary hearing he had clarified the case as direct race discrimination and wrongful dismissal, but he accepted that he had been paid in lieu of notice and that complaint was withdrawn and dismissed. The final hearing was before Employment Judge Baty with Ms Z Darmas and Mr J Carroll sitting as lay members.

The tribunal held that the direct race discrimination complaints at paragraphs 13.1-13.5 of the agreed list of issues were out of time. It found that any act before 3 November 2022 was prima facie outside the three-month limit, that the complaints were not part of conduct extending over a period for time-limit purposes, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time because the claimant knew of the alleged matters at the time and gave no explanation for delaying the claim. The tribunal cited section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, Hendricks and Robertson in reaching that conclusion.

The remaining direct race discrimination complaints, at paragraphs 13.6-13.9, were dismissed on the merits. The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that the reasons for not passing the claimant's probation and for dismissing him were the claimant's performance and conduct, including the time taken to complete work, the quality of his reports, his communications with stakeholders, the covert recording and sharing of the 17 November 2022 meeting, his failure to engage with the probation process, and his later threatening and curt behaviour. It found that those reasons were nothing whatsoever to do with race, and it also found that the claimant's proposed comparator, Mr X, was in materially different circumstances.

The tribunal also noted that the claimant had not raised race discrimination during employment, in the grievance or appeal process, in his witness statement, or when cross-examining the respondent's witnesses. It found the respondent's witnesses reliable and the claimant's evidence unreliable in material respects. On costs, the tribunal held that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and that the claimant had acted unreasonably in bringing and conducting the proceedings, including by repeated interruptions, rudeness, threats to pursue matters on LinkedIn, and other disruptive conduct. It awarded the respondent costs of £12,500, being counsel's brief fee and refreshers.