Ms Hayley Murphy v Hellerman Tyton Limited — 2023

At the preliminary hearing on 31 May 2023, Employment Judge Ficklin considered two issues: whether the claimant's sex harassment complaint should be struck out as out of time, and whether the respondent should be ordered to pay a deposit in relation to the constructive dismissal claim. The claimant had worked for the respondent from 2006 until she resigned in July 2022. The tribunal noted that her grievance about the managing director had been upheld in 2021 and that he was dismissed in October 2021.

On harassment, the tribunal applied Rule 37 and the just and equitable extension of time test under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, referring to Adedeji and Miller. It found that the claim was effectively almost a year out of time, that the claimant had no further contact with the managing director after June 2021, and that the delay was significant. The claimant's reasons for delay were understood but were not accepted as sufficient to justify extending time. The tribunal also found prejudice to the respondent because the dismissed managing director was unlikely to cooperate as a witness and memories of the events had faded.

The harassment claim was therefore struck out. The tribunal recorded that the respondent had accepted some of the conduct alleged in the claimant's grievance, but that did not alter the time-limit analysis. It held that there was no medical evidence before it showing that the claimant's health prevented a timely claim, and it concluded that it was not just and equitable to extend time.

On constructive dismissal, the tribunal refused the respondent's application for a deposit order under Rule 39. It accepted that the claimant's case was that she had not been supported after returning to work, had expected one-to-one meetings with human resources and help to reintegrate, and believed that she had been left with no choice but to resign. The tribunal considered the issue of any breakdown in trust and confidence, and the effect of any alleged last straw, to be matters for evidence at the final hearing rather than something warranting a deposit order at this stage.