Ms A Anoman v Property Support Services UK Limited — 2021

The claimant worked as a cleaning operative from 6 July 2009. After a fall on 20 March 2019, she presented an ET1 on 14 May 2020 alleging constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, with a possible personal injury element mentioned in the background. A solicitor's letter of 1 October 2020 referring to withdrawal was held not to be clear and unambiguous, and when the tribunal sought clarification the claimant said on 8 October 2020 that she wished to continue, so ET rule 51 was not engaged.

On constructive unfair dismissal, the tribunal found the claimant remained employed, remained on the payroll, had continued to send fitness-to-work notes, had not resigned, and had not been dismissed by the respondent. Because there had been no termination of the employment contract, the tribunal held that a constructive dismissal claim could not succeed and struck it out as having no reasonable prospect of success.

On disability discrimination, the tribunal held that the complaint was tied to the discrete accident on 20 March 2019 and that the claim form itself, not the earlier letter before action, had to be presented within the three-month time limit in s.123 Equality Act 2010. It refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis, noting the delay of over a year, that the claimant had been legally represented, that there was no evidence why proceedings could not have been brought earlier, and that the pleaded case did not appear strong as framed.

The tribunal added that if a standalone personal injury claim had been pursued it would have fallen outside the tribunal's jurisdiction under s.3(3) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. Having struck out all claims, the tribunal considered the respondent's costs application under ET rule 76(1) and ordered the claimant to pay a £300 contribution towards the respondent's costs, taking account of the claimant's means and pro bono representation.