Ms R Tabuko v CIS Security Limited and 1 other — 2019

This hearing dealt only with whether the claimant’s claims against the second respondent should be allowed to proceed out of time. The tribunal recorded that the complaints arose from an incident on 24 December 2018. It found that the primary three-month limitation period expired on 23 March 2019 and, after ACAS Early Conciliation, was extended by one day to 24 March 2019. The claimant’s ET1 was not submitted until 18 April 2019, so the claims were about three and a half weeks late.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had been receiving counselling and GP care for mental health issues after the incident and that the incident caused her significant distress. It also accepted that she had the support of her union and later solicitors throughout the relevant period, and that she engaged with a grievance, an appeal, ACAS Early Conciliation, and a resignation process. It nevertheless found that her mental health did not prevent or materially restrict her from pursuing her complaints, and that there was no persuasive explanation for why the ET1 was not lodged in time.

Applying s123 Equality Act 2010 and the just and equitable discretion, the tribunal noted that the delay was relatively short and would not materially affect the cogency of the evidence. However, it concluded that the lack of an adequate explanation, together with the prejudice to the second respondent and the fact that the claimant could still pursue claims against the first respondent, meant time should not be extended. The tribunal referred to possible vicarious liability under s109 Equality Act 2010, but held that did not justify allowing the late claims against the second respondent. The claims against the second respondent were therefore dismissed, and the claims against the first respondent were to continue at the resumed hearing.