Ms DC Payne v Govani Dental Limited — 2025

Ms DC Payne brought a claim pleaded as constructive unfair dismissal and complaints of disability discrimination and harassment against Govani Dental Limited. The tribunal recorded that she had a mixed single condition of anxiety and depression since 2017, but expressly made no finding on whether it amounted to a disability under the Equality Act 2010. It also said the discrimination case was not clear despite a case management hearing and three sets of further and better particulars.

The tribunal held that the constructive unfair dismissal claim was out of time. The agreed limitation date was 9 December 2024 and the claim was presented on 10 January 2025, about one month late. Applying the not reasonably practicable test and referring to Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd v Britton, the tribunal found the claimant had trade union representation, knew about the time limit early on, and was able to lodge and pursue grievances, take part in hearings, start new employment, complete a qualification, and commence early conciliation. It accepted that she had been unwell, including a chest infection and allergic reaction in late November 2024, but found that this did not prevent her from presenting the claim in time.

For the disability discrimination and harassment complaints, the tribunal accepted the parties' hearing assumption that the alleged acts were to be treated as a continuous act. It recorded that the last alleged discriminatory act was on 10 July 2024 and that the limitation date was 16 November 2024, so the claim presented on 10 January 2025 was nearly two months late. Applying the just and equitable test and citing Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council, John Lewis Partnership v Charman, Schultz v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd, Apelogun-Gabriels v Lambeth LBC, and Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, it found there was no good explanation for the delay.

The tribunal said the claimant had decided in good faith to await the grievance appeal, but no one had led her to believe she should do that before presenting a claim. It also found prejudice to the respondent because the discrimination allegations remained ill-defined despite prior directions and further particulars. All claims were therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction and no merits hearing took place.