Ms K Francis-Lyons v The Gym Ltd — 2024

This was a preliminary hearing on time limits in a case against The Gym Ltd only, after the claim had been separated from the parallel claim against Pure Gym Ltd. On the pleadings, the tribunal identified a constructive unfair dismissal complaint and three Equality Act complaints: an alleged December 2021 Christmas party incident said to amount to age-related harassment and/or harassment of a sexual nature, an allegation that the 19 June 2022 dismissal amounted to age-related harassment, and an allegation that the claimant was 'blackballed' from other gym roles after rejecting the manager's conduct.

For the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal applied s.111(2) ERA 1996 and the reasonable practicability test discussed in Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy, with Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd v Britton cited on what the claimant was able to do during the relevant period. The claim was presented on 8 December 2022, after the three-month limit from the effective date of termination on 19 June 2022. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to have presented the claim in time because the claimant was able to apply for other jobs, start work at Pure Gym in Streatham from 19 July 2022, and make police reports during the same period. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

For the Equality Act complaints, the tribunal applied s.123(1) EqA 2010 and the 'just and equitable' discretion explained in Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan, taking into account the length and reasons for delay, staleness, prejudice, and the apparent merits. It found the EqA complaints were about 6-8 weeks late, that there was no good reason for the delay, and that the claimant's mental health did not prevent an earlier claim. The tribunal also noted concerns about whether the respondent could be liable for the Christmas party incident, whether the alleged blackballing could be linked to that incident, and whether the dismissal could be linked to age. It held that the delay was not just and equitable and dismissed the Equality Act complaints. Because no claim survived, the tribunal did not consider the amendment applications, observing that they would have faced the same time-limit problem under Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore.