In person For the First v Mr Thakerar – Counsel For the Second Respondent: Ms Gyane - Counsel — 2021

The claimant brought a disability discrimination claim against the two respondents on 21 January 2020 after the termination of her engagement with the first respondent on 21 August 2019. The tribunal recorded that she had entered ACAS Early Conciliation on 5 November 2019 and received the certificate on 5 December 2019, so the latest date for presenting the claim was 5 January 2020. The tribunal noted that the claimant accepted the claim was out of time. It was also noted that the ET1 ticked disability discrimination, but the particulars did not explain the disability complaint and instead focused on an allegedly misleading and malicious false reference said to have led to a withdrawn job offer from the second respondent.

At the open preliminary hearing the tribunal considered whether to extend time on a just and equitable basis. The claimant relied on difficulties with email access, menopause-related memory issues, personal and family difficulties, and her stated position that she had not been advised by ACAS to seek legal advice. The first and second respondents submitted that there was no adequate explanation for the delay, that the claimant had been able to engage with ACAS within time, and that there was no corroborative evidence of the medical or personal issues said to have prevented timely presentation or progress of the case.

The tribunal applied section 123(1) Equality Act 2010 and considered the authorities it cited, including British Coal Corporation v Keeble, Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Trust, Robertson v Bexley Community Centre, Rathakrishnan v Pizza Express (Restaurants) Ltd, and the overriding objective in rule 2. It held that there was no valid reason for the delay, that the claimed email problems did not explain why the claim could not have been filed by other means, that the claimant’s account of her knowledge of the limitation date was contradictory, and that her circumstances were not supported by medical or other corroborative evidence.

The tribunal also took into account prejudice to the parties and the absence of evidence that the claim had merit. It concluded that it would not be just and equitable to extend time. The disability discrimination claim was therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and no monetary award was made.