Mr J Nielssen v Red Pill Productions Limited — 2023

This was an open preliminary hearing on limitation only. The tribunal found that Mr Nielssen was employed by Red Pill Productions Limited as an Account Director from 31 May 2022 and that the dismissal decision was communicated at the meeting on 20 September 2022. The claimant argued that his employment ended later because of probation issues, garden leave and payment in lieu of notice, but the tribunal held that the effective date of termination for limitation purposes was 20 September 2022 and distinguished Geys v Société Générale London Branch. It also found there was no express contractual right to extend probation, although the claimant had acquiesced in an extension to 30 September 2022.

On that basis, the discrimination complaints were out of time. The tribunal treated the last act relied on as 20 September 2022 and held that ACAS early conciliation, which began on 4 January 2023, came too late. It considered the claimant's allegations of direct disability discrimination, harassment, failure to make reasonable adjustments and victimisation, but refused to extend time on the just and equitable basis under section 123 Equality Act 2010. In doing so it relied on Robertson v Bexley Community Centre TA Leisure Link, British Coal Board v Keeble, Adedeji v University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and related authorities, and found that the claimant had not shown good reason for the delay and had produced no medical evidence showing that illness prevented an in-time claim.

The non-discrimination claims were also dismissed as out of time. The tribunal held that the claims for written reasons for dismissal under section 93(3) Employment Rights Act 1996, holiday pay under Regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, breach of contract under Article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, and unauthorised deduction from wages were all presented too late. Applying Palmer, Dedman and Schultz, it found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to bring those claims in time because he knew his rights, had calculated limitation dates himself, and had simply misapplied the law on the effective date of termination and the relevant time limits. No remedy was awarded because all claims were dismissed.