Mr P Svaetichin v Young & Co’s Brewery plc — 2019

On 12 December 2019, Employment Judge Tsamados, sitting alone at a preliminary hearing, held that Mr Svaetichin's claims were out of time and dismissed the claim in its entirety. The case concerned complaints of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, whistleblowing detriment, detriment because of trade union membership, sex discrimination, sexual harassment, age discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination. Mr Svaetichin had worked as a hotel receptionist for Young & Co's Brewery PLC from 6 August 2015 until 8 February 2018, and presented his ET1 on 8 October 2018 after ACAS Early Conciliation between 18 September and 5 October 2018.

For the unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, whistleblowing and trade union detriment complaints, the tribunal applied the statutory time-limit provisions and the "not reasonably practicable" test, including the authorities it cited on that issue. It accepted that Mr Svaetichin said he doubted the genuineness of the 8 February 2018 dismissal letter because it was unsigned and sent from a generic email address, but found that belief was not reasonable. The tribunal noted that he had appealed the dismissal, was aware of the need to act, had access to CAB, Unite and internet advice, and that his ill-health did not prevent him managing his affairs or complying with time limits. It found that he should have brought those claims within three months of 8 February 2018 and, in any event, did not present them within a further reasonable period after the appeal outcome dated 2 July 2018.

For the Equality Act complaints, the tribunal applied the "just and equitable" time-limit test under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. It found that the alleged sexual harassment between August 2016 and February 2017 was already out of time by May 2017, that the promotion-related sex and age discrimination allegations were also long out of time, and that the pay allegation was at least four to five months out of time even if treated as a continuing act. The tribunal did not accept that ignorance of time limits, the internal grievance process, ill-health or the delay in obtaining assistance justified an extension. It also took account of the age of the allegations and the fact that Ms Williams had left the respondent, and concluded that it was not just and equitable to extend time. No monetary award was made, and the further preliminary hearing listed for 29 January 2020 was vacated.