(1) Ms A Sequeira (2) Mr C Schafer v JJD Logistics Limited and 1 other — 2020

This was a preliminary hearing on limitation only. The Claimants, who are husband and wife, were dismissed by the First Respondent on 23 August 2019 and presented ET1 claims on 11 February 2020. The tribunal found that, after accounting for ACAS Early Conciliation, the claims were brought between 21 and 24 days after the relevant time limits had expired.

For the unfair dismissal, notice pay and holiday pay claims, the tribunal applied the statutory "not reasonably practicable" test. It found that the First Claimant's explanation, that he had responsibility for the Second Claimant, did not explain the delay because he was still able to care for her, do household duties and contact ACAS within the primary time limit. There was no evidence that either Claimant was ignorant of the time limits or unaware of the right to present claims. The tribunal therefore held that the First Claimant had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to present his claims in time.

The Second Claimant relied on low mood and depression. The tribunal accepted that she consulted her GP on 15 October 2019 for low mood and that later medical records recorded depression, stress and anxiety, but it held that the evidence was too general and too retrospective to show why she could not present her claims or seek advice within the limitation period. It noted that she did not consult her GP again until July 2020 and that the claimants chose not to give oral evidence, so their written account could not be tested. The tribunal also considered the authorities on illness and limitation, including Porter v Bandridge, Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council, Asda Stores v Kauser, Norbert Dentressangle Logistics v Hutton, Shultz v Esso and Chouafi v London United Busways.

The Second Claimant's sex discrimination claim was considered under the "just and equitable" test in section 123(1) Equality Act 2010. The tribunal referred to Robertson v Bexley Community Centre, British Coal Corporation v Keeble, British Transport Police v Norman, Miller v Ministry of Justice, Department of Constitutional Affairs v Jones, Southwark LBC v Afolabi, Aberawe Bro Morgannwg v Morgan and Rathakrishnan v Pizza Express Restaurants. It accepted that there is a public policy interest in discrimination claims being investigated, but found that the Claimants had given insufficient detail about the delay and that the balance of prejudice favoured the Respondents. All claims were therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction and no monetary award was made.