in person For the v Respondent — 2025

The claimant's employment ended on 17 January 2022 and the primary limitation period expired on 16 April 2022. The claim was not presented until 20 March 2024, after ACAS early conciliation on 7 and 8 March 2024. At a preliminary hearing, Employment Judge Hodgson considered limitation, amendment, and strike-out issues. The earlier preliminary hearing had identified claims of unfair dismissal and direct discrimination based on race and religion or belief.

For the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal applied s.111 ERA 1996 and the reasonable practicability test, with reference to Dedmen v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd and Parmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council. It rejected the claimant's evidence that anxiety, depression, and her personal circumstances made it impracticable to bring the claim in time. The tribunal found she had been able to work for most of the period after leaving the respondent, had the mental capacity to bring proceedings, and understood that a claim could be brought. It also found no misleading conduct by the respondent and no sufficient promptness once she decided to proceed.

For the discrimination claims, the tribunal applied the just and equitable test under s.123 Equality Act 2010, referring to Robertson v Bexley Community Centre TA Leisure Link, Chohan v Derby Law Centre, Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, and Galilee v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. It accepted that there had been considerable delay and that the passage of time could make evidence harder to obtain, but found the claimant knew she could bring claims and had chosen to delay until a February 2024 triggering event. The respondent had not caused the delay, and the tribunal declined to extend time.

All claims were dismissed as out of time. Because the unfair dismissal claim failed on limitation, the tribunal did not need to decide whether the claimant had the requisite continuity of employment, and the assumed amendment application did not alter the outcome.