Mr M Hennessy v Delfino Logic Limited — 2023

The claimant presented his ET1 on 16 December 2021 after his employment ended on 30 June 2021. The tribunal held that the relevant limitation period for the unfair dismissal, wages, holiday pay and disability discrimination complaints ran from 30 June 2021, subject to the ACAS early conciliation extension, which took the extended deadline to 30 October 2021. The tribunal found that the December 2021 presentation was therefore about 1.5 months late for those claims.

On the unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages and holiday pay claims, the tribunal applied the statutory reasonably practicable test. It accepted that the claimant had ADHD and had experienced depression, but found that those matters did not prevent him from pursuing other grievances energetically during the same period, including complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service, the ICO and issues connected with whatdotheyknow. It concluded that it was reasonably practicable to present the claims in time and, alternatively, that the claims were not brought within a reasonable time thereafter. Those claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

On disability discrimination, the tribunal treated the alleged acts as the director ignoring repeated references to ADHD and the dismissal on 30 June 2021. It applied the just and equitable extension test under section 123 Equality Act 2010, referring to Robertson, Morgan, Adedeji and the Harvey factors, including delay, reasons for delay and prejudice. The tribunal found that the claimant knew the tribunal time limits, that the medical evidence did not show a barrier in the relevant period, and that his pursuit of other organisations undermined the case for extending time. It declined to extend time and dismissed the disability discrimination claim.

The respondent had also raised a strike out warning based on failure actively to pursue the case and failure to comply with tribunal orders. The tribunal noted that the claimant had not provided a schedule of loss or complied with disclosure-related directions on time, but it declined to strike out the redundancy payment claim. The tribunal considered that the redundancy pay issue was narrower, that a fair trial was still possible, and that the claim should continue. No remedy was awarded in this judgment, and the merits of the redundancy payment claim were left for later determination.