In Person For the v Respondent — 2022

The claimant, a barrister and tenant at Cornerstone Chambers, brought complaints of direct belief discrimination, harassment related to belief, and victimisation arising from events after his 17 January 2021 tweet about the Equality Act and school discipline. The parties agreed the preliminary hearing should decide only whether, for allegations brought out of time, it was just and equitable to extend time under section 123 Equality Act 2010.

The tribunal found that the claimant knew the relevant facts when the alleged detriments occurred, but made a considered decision not to bring a discrimination claim within the three-month limit because he thought the claim would fail on the law. He had read the first-instance Forstater decision, knew it was not binding, and understood that it concerned different beliefs. The tribunal also found that his lack of knowledge of discrimination time limits was not reasonable, given his experience at the Bar and his awareness of tribunal limitation periods.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's reliance on the period spent dealing with Bar Standards Board proceedings. It found that there were no BSB hearings or procedural steps between 10 June 2021 and 9 August 2021 that prevented him from considering a tribunal claim, and concluded that he simply decided not to investigate the claim further until after 23 August 2021. Any later advice from his solicitor did not change the fact that the earlier delay was his responsibility.

On prejudice and discretion, the tribunal held that the respondents would be considerably prejudiced by an extension because the delay was about five months beyond the original limit and the case would require examination of the motivations and thought processes of several chambers members from January 2021. It rejected the Article 6 argument and the submission that the case should be treated as requiring special consideration because it concerned freedom of expression. The tribunal concluded that there was very little reason to extend time, refused the extension, and dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction.