Mr S Kidd v Wandle Housing Association, and 1 other — 2024

Mr S Kidd brought a victimisation complaint against Wandle Housing Association and Mr C Marcus. The hearing on 19 April 2024 before Employment Judge Ramsden was a preliminary issue on time limits. The Tribunal found that the Third ET1, filed on 10 July 2023, was 29 days outside the primary limitation period once early conciliation was taken into account, so the claim could only proceed if time were extended on just and equitable grounds under section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010.

The Claimant relied on five reasons for the delay: waiting for an internal appeal, being a litigant in person and seeking legal assistance, being overwhelmed by this claim and his separate proceedings against L&QH, the effect on his mental health and livelihood, and the lack of a response to an email sent to the Tribunal on 9 May 2023. The Judge accepted that there is a wide discretion to extend time and that a claimant does not need to show exceptional circumstances or good reason, but found that none of those explanations justified an extension on the facts. The Claimant still had time after the internal appeal ended, and the correction needed to the ET1 was limited to supplying the correct ACAS early conciliation number.

The Tribunal considered prejudice, the steps taken to obtain advice, and the strength of the claim. The First Respondent’s prejudice was said to be limited to memory fade, with relevant personnel still employed, so that point did not weigh materially against extension. The Claimant’s efforts to obtain advice were neutral, and the strength of the claim was also neutral because the central issue was a factual dispute about why the engagement ended. Even so, the Tribunal said there was no material on which it could properly conclude that justice and equity required an extension, so the claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The First Respondent had also applied to strike out the claim under Rule 37(1)(a), but that application was unnecessary once the claim was found out of time. The Judge said that, if it had to be determined, strike-out would not have been granted because there was a core factual dispute about the reason for termination, the Claimant’s case was plausible, and the claim had more than a fanciful prospect of success.