In Person Interpreter: Mr Yang Sun, Mandarin (China) For the v Mr D Morgan, Solicitor — 2020

The claimant presented her claim on 24 March 2019 and complained of unfair dismissal, race discrimination, and what she described as mental injury or mental damage compensation. The tribunal found that the ET1 contained the number from the second Acas early conciliation certificate, not the first, and accepted the respondent's submission that the claim had to be rejected under Rule 12(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. It also held that the second early conciliation period in March 2019 had no effect, citing Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs v Serra Garau and E.on Control Solutions Ltd v Caspall.

On the alternative assumption that the claim could be considered, the unfair dismissal complaint was out of time. The claimant's employment ended on 17 July 2018 and the dismissal letter was sent on 18 July 2018. Taking account of the first early conciliation period, the tribunal said the deadline was 24 December 2018, but the claim was not filed until 24 March 2019. The claimant said she was upset and traumatised, had physical and mental health problems, had joined a union and was dealing with Mr Purcell, and had not been told about the time limits. The tribunal accepted the respondent's submission that the union and Mr Purcell were skilled advisors, found no medical evidence that illness prevented an in-time claim, and held that she could have engaged in early conciliation, taken advice, and presented her claim in time. It also said that, even if it were wrong on reasonable practicability, the period from 24 December 2018 to 24 March 2019 was not a reasonable further period.

The race discrimination complaint was also treated as out of time and the tribunal was not prepared to extend time on a just and equitable basis. It recorded that by January 2020 the claimant had not identified how she was treated less favourably or how the alleged treatment related to race for complaints 1-5, that complaint 6 related to an incident on or before 15 June 2018 with an earlier expiry date, and that her holiday in China did not explain the delay because she was corresponding with her advisor during the limitation period. The tribunal also noted the respondent's evidence that several witnesses were no longer available or were long-term ill, and that the claimant had decided to pursue the matter before the limitation period expired but did not take further steps. It further noted that later sex discrimination allegations were said to fall outside the original ET1 and would require amendment.