Mr Philton Alfred v The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs and 1 other — 2023

The claimant worked at the first respondent's premises between 15 November 2017 and 30 June 2018, supplied by the second respondent. He presented his ET1 on 26 March 2022, complaining of unfair dismissal and race discrimination, with wrongful dismissal also treated as mentioned in the original claim. The tribunal refused his application to vacate the preliminary hearing and rejected his arguments about the respondents' responses, summary judgment, jurisdiction, and tribunal composition.

The claimant applied to amend his claim to add multiple further heads of claim. The tribunal refused the amendment application, finding that some proposed matters were outside the tribunal's jurisdiction, some were not amendments but remedy matters, some were inadequately pleaded, and some were not claims the claimant was entitled to bring. It concluded that the balance of prejudice significantly favoured the respondents.

The tribunal found the existing claims were around three and a half years out of time. Taking the claimant's evidence at face value, it found no reasonable prospect that a tribunal would conclude it had not been reasonably practicable to bring the unfair and wrongful dismissal claims in time, or that it would be just and equitable to extend time for the Equality Act claims. It therefore struck out the claims and added that, if strike out had not been appropriate, it would in any event have dismissed the case as out of time.