Case 2305004/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person (assisted by his mother) For the v Ms D Scales (Solicitor) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2305004/2019
- Decision date
- 7 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams-Parish
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person (assisted by his mother) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented a first claim on 14 November 2019 and a second claim on 2 June 2020. The first claim ticked unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and pregnancy and maternity discrimination. The second claim ticked unfair dismissal, age discrimination, race discrimination, disability discrimination and arrears of pay. At the hearing the claimant confirmed that age discrimination had been ticked in error and that he was not pursuing it. The tribunal also recorded that he remained employed by the respondent at the date of the hearing.
The tribunal held that the discrimination claims were presented outside the three-month limit in s.123 Equality Act 2010 and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. It found that the first claim, based on events of 28 March 2019, should have been presented by 27 June 2019, and the second claim, based on the 9 June 2019 water-bottle incident, should have been presented by 8 September 2019. The first claim was not presented until 14 November 2019 and the second until 2 June 2020. The tribunal found no good reason for the delay, noted that the claimant was able to identify his complaints when required, and accepted the respondent's prejudice arguments, including fading evidence and difficulty with a witness who had left employment.
The application to amend, which ran to 11 pages, was refused applying the Selkent factors. The tribunal found that it introduced new claims and new factual allegations, and that some matters raised orally were not even in the amendment application. It concluded there was no good reason for the delay and that allowing the amendment would cause greater hardship to the respondent.
The unfair dismissal claim was struck out under rule 37 because the claimant had not been dismissed and the claim had no reasonable prospects of success. The order also recorded that the arrears of pay claim had not been discussed at the hearing and required the claimant to confirm within 14 days whether he wished to continue with it and, if so, to provide details of the sums claimed and how they were calculated.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | At the hearing the claimant confirmed he had ticked age discrimination in error and was not pursuing an age discrimination complaint. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The first claim alleged disability discrimination in relation to the March 2019 break incident, and the second claim also alleged disability discrimination in relation to the June 2019 dismissal allegation. The tribunal held that the discrimination claims were presented out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | This was one of the discrimination claims raised in the first claim form. It was dismissed because the claim was presented outside the applicable time limit and time was not extended. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Race discrimination | The second claim alleged race discrimination in relation to the alleged dismissal over the one-pound water bottle incident. The tribunal dismissed it as out of time and refused to extend time on a just and equitable basis. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal treated any live unfair dismissal complaint as struck out because the claimant had not been dismissed, so the claim had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010 just and equitable test
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble factors
- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore factors
- ET Rule 37 no reasonable prospect of success
- ET Rule 39 little reasonable prospect of success
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.