Mrs E Gita v Mr Farhad Tailor and 1 other — 2022

Mrs Gita had worked as a nanny for Mr Tailor and his wife from 2013. The employment ended when a P45 was issued, no later than 31 January 2021. The claims were presented on 9 August 2021, after a short ACAS early conciliation period running from 6 to 8 July 2021. The tribunal dealt with the claims as unfair dismissal, non-payment of wages including the national minimum wage, non-payment of holiday pay, and dismissal because of maternity leave/pregnancy under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010.

On the evidence, the tribunal found that by late March 2021 the claimant had already engaged an accountant about maternity pay and tax issues, had contact through a friend with Mrs Natalie Johnson-Stanley, and had begun sending detailed letters before action. Those letters of 1 April, 14 April and 17 May 2021 set out complaints about maternity pay, national minimum wage, holiday pay, unfair dismissal and discrimination, and the tribunal found they showed an awareness of the claims and of the possibility of tribunal proceedings. It also found that the claimant and Mrs Johnson-Stanley knew about time limits, and rejected the explanation that delay was caused by lack of knowledge or language difficulties.

The tribunal held that the ERA claims were out of time and that it was reasonably practicable to present them within the primary three-month limitation period. It treated the ACAS early conciliation period as incapable of assisting because conciliation did not begin until after the primary limit had already expired. For the Equality Act claim, the tribunal applied the just and equitable test under section 123(1) EqA 2010, relying on Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham and Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan, and refused to extend time. It accepted the respondents' argument that the delay was substantial and that there was prejudice in having to defend allegations raised late, including some matters that were only advanced much later in the proceedings. The judgment therefore dismissed all claims for want of jurisdiction, with no monetary award.