Mr O Olayiwole v Plonk Crazy Golf Limited — 2023

Mr O Olayiwole worked for Plonk Crazy Golf Limited as a host from 23 February 2022 until his dismissal on 18 July 2022. He had been diagnosed with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in May 2022. The respondent said he was dismissed for gross misconduct based on dishonesty, including telling his manager he was sick when he was at the Wireless music festival and saying he had been on site for a booking when he had not been there. The claimant's case was advanced as disability discrimination, with the represented position being that the alleged dishonesty and related events were something arising in consequence of his disability under s.15 Equality Act 2010.

The only issue the tribunal determined was whether it was just and equitable to extend time under s.123(1) Equality Act 2010. It found the claim was five weeks late: the ACAS deadline was 17 October 2022 and the claim was not presented until 24 November 2022. The tribunal accepted that the claimant's condition fluctuated and had a significant effect on him, but found he knew immediately that he was unhappy with the dismissal, had sent a comprehensive appeal letter on the day of dismissal setting out the same issues later relied on in the claim, and could have asked his mother to submit the claim in time while he was at home or in hospital. It concluded that the main reason for the delay was that he had not decided whether to pursue the claim until after time had expired.

In balancing prejudice, the tribunal noted that the claimant's own admissions that he had lied about his whereabouts were a significant weakness to the claim, and it said it was sceptical about the alleged link between the dishonesty and the disability. It considered the respondent would face prejudice in having to defend a claim brought late where the prospects of success appeared weak, and that dismissal in the circumstances was likely to be a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of preserving trust and fidelity. It therefore held that it was not just and equitable to extend time, held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim, and dismissed the claim in its entirety.