Case 2304874/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Augustine Lebbie v Saint-Gobain Building Distribution Limited, t/a Jewson — 2022
- Case reference
- 2304874/2021
- Decision date
- 7 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Swaffer Representation
- Venue
- ET London South via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Augustine Lebbie
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Swaffer heard a preliminary issue on 14 February 2023. Mr Lebbie had been employed by Saint-Gobain Building Distribution Limited, t/a Jewson, from 20 September 2019 until his dismissal on 18 December 2020. The tribunal decided that the unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions claims under the ERA were out of jurisdiction, but that the Equality Act claims for direct disability discrimination, harassment related to disability, direct race discrimination, harassment related to race, direct sex discrimination, harassment related to sex, and victimisation were out of time but should proceed because it was just and equitable to extend time.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that Mr Lebbie did not have two years' service and that no exception in s.108(2)-(5) ERA 1996 applied, including the redundancy exception. It also found that the unfair dismissal claim was presented about four and a half months late and that, although anxiety, shattered confidence and Covid-19 were relevant to his delay, the claim was not brought within a further reasonable period for the purposes of s.111 ERA 1996. The tribunal reached the same jurisdictional conclusion on the unlawful deductions complaint, treating the alleged unpaid £500 as part of that issue and holding that the claim was not presented within a reasonable time under s.23 ERA 1996.
For the Equality Act claims, the tribunal found the claim form was also late by about four and a half months, but it exercised the s.123(1)(b) EqA 2010 discretion to extend time. It accepted that the claimant had contacted his trade union, a charity, the CAB and ACAS, and that his anxiety and shattered confidence, together with the impact of Covid-19 and his efforts to obtain and keep work after dismissal, were material reasons for the delay. In assessing prejudice, the tribunal noted that the respondent had been on notice of the substance of the allegations through the grievance raised on 18 December 2020 and the grievance hearing in January 2021, and it also took account of the respondent's own case management defaults. The merits of the discrimination, harassment and victimisation allegations were not decided in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The tribunal found the claimant had less than two years' service and that no exception in s.108(2)-(5) ERA 1996 applied. It also found the claim was out of time under s.111 ERA 1996 and not presented within a further reasonable period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The tribunal treated the alleged unpaid £500 as part of the wages claim, found the complaint was out of time under s.23 ERA 1996, and held it was not presented within a further reasonable period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The time-bar objection was rejected. The tribunal extended time under s.123(1)(b) EqA 2010 and held the direct disability discrimination claim was made in time and should proceed; merits were not decided. | Other | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The time-bar objection was rejected. The tribunal extended time under s.123(1)(b) EqA 2010 and held the harassment related to disability claim was made in time and should proceed; merits were not decided. | Other | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The time-bar objection was rejected. The tribunal extended time under s.123(1)(b) EqA 2010 and held the direct race discrimination claim was made in time and should proceed; merits were not decided. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
16 references- s.108 ERA 1996 two-year service rule
- s.111 ERA 1996 reasonably practicable test
- s.23 ERA 1996 reasonably practicable test
- s.123 EqA 2010 just and equitable extension
- Hendricks continuing act principle
- Keeble factors
- Adedeji length and reasons for delay
- Marks & Spencer v Williams-Ryan
- Nolan v Balfour Beatty reasonable period
- Cullinane public interest in prompt claims
- Porter v Bandridge reasonable ignorance test
- Trevelyans duty to seek advice
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum practicability
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan discretion
- Perth & Kinross Council v Townsley
- Riley v Tesco Stores Ltd
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.