Mr H Mahmoud Ali v STM Group (UK) Limited — 2019

Mr H Mahmoud Ali began work with STM Group (UK) Limited on 5 August 2017 on a three-week fixed-term zero-hours contract. After that initial period, he said he was told he would continue to receive work on a shift basis and that he would be issued with a contract. He also said that younger colleagues received guaranteed 20-hour contracts, and he relied in part on an email he sent on 15 September 2017 asking about his contract.

The preliminary hearing was concerned with whether the age discrimination complaint was presented out of time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal considered the authorities on continuing acts, including Barclays Bank v Kapur, Hendricks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, Robertson v Bexley Community Centre, and the factors in British Coal Corporation v Keeble. It concluded that the alleged failure to provide a guaranteed-hours contract could amount to a continuing act because the complaint concerned an ongoing situation in which such contracts were issued at various times. On that basis, the tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to hear the age discrimination complaint.

The tribunal also dealt with the Respondent's late ET3 response. It found that the response had not been formally rejected, that the Respondent had not been told it needed to apply for an extension of time or for reconsideration, and that the Respondent clearly intended to defend the proceedings. The tribunal therefore allowed the Respondent to continue to defend the claim. It also observed, on the evidence heard at this stage, that the claim had little merit and little prospect of success, and it relisted the case for a further preliminary hearing to consider a deposit order and further case management directions.