Mr Ogun, Solicitor v Mr O’Neil , Solicitor — 2020

The tribunal, sitting alone, held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claimant's claims and dismissed them all. It found the effective date of termination was 26 March 2019, that the claimant knew of the dismissal by 12 April 2019, and that he also knew the appeal outcome by no later than 24 September 2019, probably by 30 August 2019. The tribunal found his evidence on those matters unreliable and accepted that he received legal advice about the three-month limit, but still did not present his ET claim until 2 December 2019.

For the unfair dismissal, breach of contract, holiday pay under Regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, and unlawful deduction of wages claims, the tribunal applied the section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996 time limit and the question of whether it was reasonably practicable to present the claims in time. It relied on the authorities it cited, including Porter v Bandridge Ltd, Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan, Trusthouse Forte (UK) Ltd v Halstead, Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council, Pearce v Bank of America, and GMB v Hamm, and concluded that the claimant had known enough about the position to file on time and had not done so within any reasonable further period.

For the direct race discrimination claim, the tribunal applied section 123 Equality Act 2010 and the just and equitable extension test, including the approach in Robertson v Bexley Community Centre, Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan, and Apelogun-Gabriels v London Borough of Lambeth. It found there were no just and equitable grounds to extend time, pointing to the length of the delay, the absence of a good reason for it, and the claimant's knowledge of the applicable time limits.

The tribunal accepted that the respondent was not without some blame, including the use of the wrong address, the apparent failure to send a P45, and delay in the appeal outcome reaching the claimant. It nevertheless held that the main fault for the delay lay with the claimant, and that the later ACAS Early Conciliation process did not assist because it began after the primary limitation period had already expired.