Ms S Kelly v Providence Row Housing Association and 1 other — 2020

This was a preliminary hearing on time limits and whether a deposit order should be made. Ms S Kelly worked for Providence Row Housing Association from 8 May 2014 until her dismissal with effect from 4 January 2019, and she was seconded to Single Homeless Project from 4 June 2014 until 18 October 2017. The tribunal held that all claims against Single Homeless Project were out of time. Even on the most generous assumption that the alleged conduct extended to 18 October 2017, proceedings issued on 27 March 2019 were more than 14 months late after early conciliation, and it would not be just and equitable to extend time.

As against Providence Row Housing Association, the tribunal held that the alleged failure to support the claimant at the 17 August 2017 meeting was a discrete event, not a continuing act. The harassment and direct race discrimination claims based on that incident were therefore out of time, as was the non-dismissal victimisation complaint based on the alleged failure to assist in relation to the 18 October 2017 meeting. The tribunal again refused to extend time, relying on the length of the delay, the advice and assistance the claimant had already received, and the prejudice likely to arise from faded recollection.

The tribunal did allow the dismissal-related victimisation claim against Providence Row Housing Association to proceed, alongside the unfair dismissal claim. It found that the dismissal victimisation allegation was only about six weeks out of time and that it was just and equitable to extend time, in part because the unfair dismissal claim was already in time and the dismissal facts would need to be addressed in any event. No deposit order was made under Rule 39 of the Employment Tribunals Rules 2013 because the respondent had not shown that the surviving unfair dismissal and dismissal-victimisation allegations had little reasonable prospect of success.