In person For the v Ms C Lord – Counsel — 2021

At this open preliminary hearing, the respondent applied to strike out the claim as out of time. The tribunal refused that application under s.123 Equality Act 2010, finding it just and equitable to extend time for the ET1 presented on 20 May 2019. The claimant had believed the dispute might be resolved internally and said he only realised tribunal proceedings were necessary when he was told on 21 February 2019 that disciplinary proceedings would be taken.

In reaching that conclusion, the tribunal referred to British Coal Corporation v Keeble, Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Trust, and Robertson v Bexley Community Centre. It found the delay was not excessive, that the respondent's own four-month delay in deciding whether to take disciplinary action did not affect the cogency of the evidence, and that the balance of prejudice favoured the claimant because, without an extension, he would be barred from pursuing the discrimination claim while the respondent had long known it faced such a claim.

The claimant's application to amend the claim to add victimisation claims was refused under Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore. The tribunal treated the proposed amendment as a major new cause of action, noted that the incidents relied on were between six and thirteen months out of time, and found no satisfactory explanation for the delay. It also took account of the claimant's failure to comply with earlier tribunal orders and held that the balance of prejudice favoured the respondent. A separate disclosure application against Grindr was also refused as disproportionate and unnecessary, and the matter was listed to proceed to hearing.