Miss M El Harrachy v Www.axparis.co.uk Ltd — 2026

Miss El Harrachy presented claims of unfair dismissal, unlawful deductions from wages and race discrimination on 7 November 2023, having commenced ACAS early conciliation on 2 October 2023. The Tribunal identified 2 July 2023 as the material cut-off date. It held that the unfair dismissal claim was presented in time, but did not determine that claim on its merits.

The race discrimination complaints concerned alleged events principally arising between January and April 2022, with the latest potential allegation dated 27 April 2023. All therefore predated 2 July 2023. Applying the just and equitable test, the Tribunal declined to extend time and dismissed the complaints for want of jurisdiction.

In reaching that decision, the Tribunal considered the length and reasons for the delay, the claimant's medical evidence, her lack of knowledge of the time limit, her wish to await the grievance process and her concern about bringing proceedings while employed. It found that the medical evidence did not account for the whole period of delay, noted that the claimant had access to trade-union assistance and the Citizens Advice Bureau, and found that she had not demonstrated clear reasons for the substantial delay. Although the respondent had not established specific forensic prejudice, the Tribunal considered that the claimant had not acted promptly after the grievance process or after her dismissal.

The claimed £10,488.81 in alleged wage deductions related to the difference between the hours the claimant worked and the 30 weekly hours she considered contractual, rather than non-payment for hours actually worked. The Tribunal held that these were complaints about changes to working hours and were not unlawful deductions from wages claims. It also held that any complaints arising before 2 July 2023 were out of time and that it had been reasonably practicable to present them sooner; during the later sickness-absence period, the Tribunal found no viable deductions claim. The wage claims were dismissed and no monetary award was made.

The remaining unfair dismissal claim concerned a dismissal which the respondent said was for capability following prolonged sickness absence. The Tribunal recorded the respondent's case that consent for an occupational health report had not been provided and that the claimant had not attended the capability meeting or appeal hearing, but made no final findings on the fairness of the dismissal. It directed the claimant to provide further information so that it could decide whether the claim should be struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success or made subject to a deposit order as having little reasonable prospect of success.