Represented himself For the v Ms J Whiteley (solicitor advocate) — 2023

The tribunal considered two claim forms, later consolidated, in which the claimant advanced unfair dismissal and disability discrimination complaints arising out of his dismissal on 11 July 2022. It recorded that ACAS early conciliation began on 10 October 2022 and ended on 25 October 2022, so the dismissal claims had to be presented by 25 November 2022 to be in time. The first claim was presented on 27 November 2022 and the second on 28 November 2022. The tribunal therefore found that the unfair dismissal complaint and the dismissal-related discrimination complaint were both out of time, and that any earlier complaints were also out of time.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to have been presented in time to the extent the claimant relied on health difficulties, his parents moving, or any misunderstanding about when time started. It accepted that he had anxiety/anxiety attacks, but found that this did not stop him starting ACAS early conciliation or preparing and lodging the claim forms during the relevant period. It also found that he knew time ran from the dismissal date, and that his real error was thinking he had six weeks from the ACAS certificate rather than a month. Because he could and should have got the time limit right, the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out.

For disability discrimination, the tribunal distinguished between the dismissal-related complaint of discrimination arising from disability and the other proposed complaints. It extended time just and equitably for the dismissal-related complaint because the delay was only two days, the issues had already been identified clearly, and the respondent would not be materially prejudiced beyond having to defend the case. The tribunal noted that, on the respondent's case, dismissal was said to have followed a long period of absence and that the issues were likely to turn mainly on knowledge and justification. By contrast, the claimant's later schedule contained 13 further proposed disability discrimination allegations that were not set out in the claim forms, would have required amendment, were at least 10 months out of time on that basis, and remained unclear despite earlier case management directions. The tribunal refused to extend time for those allegations and struck them out.