Mr J Fletcher v Blachford UK Ltd — 2024

Mr Fletcher had leukaemia and the respondent conceded that he was disabled within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010. He had been employed from 1 February 2017, with continuity running from 16 June 2014 after TUPE, and became Production Manager in August 2019. The tribunal recorded that he was placed on furlough in March 2020, that discussions in 2022 concerned a phased return to work, and that he later said he was not ready to return because of anxiety and asked whether a settlement agreement could be reached.

The tribunal held that Mr Fletcher was dismissed and was not the subject of a mutual termination. It found insufficient evidence that he knew he was entering into a voluntary agreement to end his employment, and noted that the contemporaneous notes from Ms Guest did not contain enough detail to support the respondent's mutual-termination case. It also relied on the fact that the dismissal letter sent on 10 November 2022 used the word dismissal more than once and referred to a right of appeal. The effective date of termination was found to be 31 October 2022.

For unfair dismissal, the tribunal found the claim was out of time because it was not presented within three months plus the early conciliation extension of the effective date of termination. It rejected the argument that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. Although it accepted that the claimant had cancer, anxiety and depression, it found insufficient medical evidence that those conditions prevented a timely claim, and noted that he was able to communicate with the respondent by email and WhatsApp and could have investigated his rights.

The disability discrimination complaint, framed as a failure to make reasonable adjustments claim, was also out of time. The tribunal found that the claim should have been presented by 30 January 2023 but was not presented until 22 March 2023, about seven weeks late. It refused to extend time on just and equitable grounds, taking into account the length of the delay, the lack of detailed evidence about the reasons for it, the absence of GP or specialist mental health evidence, and the prejudice to the respondent in having to defend a claim that the tribunal considered could and should have been brought earlier.