Mr D Deejur, of Counsel For the v Respondent — 2020

The Claimant brought age, sex, race and disability discrimination claims arising from her dismissal on 4 April 2019, but the tribunal first dealt with jurisdiction. It found that the ET1 was presented out of time on 11 November 2019 and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The tribunal accepted that a conversation took place with a Tribunal employee called Debbie and that the Claimant had attempted to send an email attachment, but it found she then delayed in following up, knew that no acknowledgement had been received, and later chose to make a complaint rather than pursue a claim.

In assessing whether to extend time, the tribunal applied the well-known authorities on just and equitable extension, including Robertson and British Coal v Keeble, and focused on whether the Claimant acted promptly and reasonably once she knew the position. It found her explanation for the delay after 16 October 2019 weak, and concluded that the later period of inaction showed a change of mind rather than a continuing attempt to present a claim. On that basis, there was no jurisdiction to entertain the claims.

The tribunal also determined the separate preliminary issue of disability. It considered the Claimant's evidence about stress, anxiety and related symptoms in late 2018 and 2019, together with GP notes, appraisal records, sickness review notes and later work records. Applying section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 and guidance including J v DLA Piper UK, it held that the evidence did not establish a mental impairment or a long-term adverse effect. The Claimant was therefore found not to have been disabled at the material times. Because the jurisdiction ruling disposed of the case, the proposed amendment issue was not adjudicated.