AB v Dhimitraq Beanj and 1 other — 2024

By judgment sent to the parties on 25 June 2024, the tribunal had found it had no jurisdiction to hear the furlough-pay aspect of the claimant’s unlawful deductions from wages complaint. The claimant applied on 8 July 2024 for reconsideration, arguing that she only learned from the second respondent’s ET3 that furlough monies had been claimed on her behalf, so it had not been reasonably practicable to present the complaint within the primary three-month time limit.

The tribunal refused reconsideration. It accepted for present purposes that the furlough-pay point could be read as pleaded in the amended particulars of claim, but noted that it was first raised in the claimant’s amendment application dated 6 June 2023. The ET1 had only ticked the arrears of pay box and did not particularise a furlough-pay complaint. The tribunal said the second respondent’s ET3 had been filed on 23 May 2022 and sent to the claimant on 8 June 2022, so the amendment application was made almost exactly a year later.

Applying section 23(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal held there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked. Even if it had not been reasonably practicable to present the complaint within the primary period, the claimant had not shown that a further year after receipt of the ET3 was a reasonable further period. The cited Afolabi case did not assist because it concerned different Equality Act time limits and the claimant there acted within three months of discovering the relevant facts.