Mrs C Buckby v Cumberland Council — 2024

This was a public preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Cookson sitting alone. The listed issue was the respondent's application to strike out Equality Act complaints on time-limit grounds, namely whether allegations outside the disciplinary process had no reasonable prospect of being shown to form part of conduct extending over a period ending with the claimant's disciplinary appeal. The respondent did not pursue a separate fair-hearing strike-out ground, and the tribunal did not determine the unfair dismissal or protected disclosure complaints referred to in the procedural history.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's objections to the preliminary hearing proceeding. It found that the hearing had been listed by Regional Employment Judge Franey, that the claimant had been informed that strike out would be considered, and that the claimant's decision not to prepare did not justify refusing to determine the application. The tribunal considered the pleadings, the list of issues, respondent's submissions, claimant's oral submissions, and available case management material.

The tribunal held that the claimant had no reasonable prospect of establishing that several older Equality Act allegations were part of a course of conduct ending with the disciplinary appeal. It struck out complaints concerning the alleged failure to provide a large screen between October 2017 and about June or July 2018, the 2018 absence management process, the alleged failure to provide a minute taker for looked after children meetings from August 2018 to March 2019, the informal capability process in early 2019, and the grievance hearing issue in March or April 2019. The tribunal reasoned that the claimant had not identified evidence showing a sufficient connection between those events and the later disciplinary process; references to Ms Clark's involvement or alleged hostility were described as vague and insufficient for the continuing act argument.

The tribunal did not strike out the remaining Equality Act allegations. It took a cautious approach to allegation 6, concerning the claimant allegedly being required in about November 2020 to have Kim Clark as manager despite occupational health and consultant recommendations; allegation 7, concerning an instruction from Kim Clark in about March 2019 that the claimant should not drive to work until she could prove fitness to drive; and allegation 9, concerning a safeguarding referral in 2019 and alleged statements about messages. The tribunal said the claimant's explanations were unclear in places, but it could not conclude that those complaints had no reasonable prospect of establishing jurisdiction.

On the alternative just and equitable extension issue, the tribunal found that the claimant had no reasonable prospect of persuading the final hearing tribunal to extend time for complaints not brought within the primary statutory time limit, because she identified no evidence or submissions explaining why the claim was not presented in time or why discretion should be exercised in her favour. No monetary remedy was awarded in this preliminary judgment.