Mr K Sivarajah v Sikandar Ali Jatoi Tahir Shahab Khan Salman Shah Ghulam Mustafa Saghir Ahmad — 2020

The claim form against the named individual respondents included discrimination allegations, a whistleblowing/public interest disclosure complaint, and claims for holiday pay, sick pay, notice pay, arrears of pay and unfair dismissal. The reasons record that Employment Judge Reid had already dismissed the age, race, disability, sex, marital status and religion/belief discrimination claims in a judgment dated 23 December 2020 and sent on 29 December 2020. The present hearing before Employment Judge Lewis was concerned with the remaining complaints.

Judge Lewis applied section 111 ERA 1996 and the authorities he cited on reasonable practicability and time limits, including Palmer and Saunders v Southend on Sea Borough Council, Dedman v British Building & Engineering Appliances Limited, North East London NHS Foundation Trust v Zhou, Marks & Spencer plc v Williams Ryan, and John Lewis Plc v Charman. He found that the claims before him covered substantially, if not identically, the same ground as earlier claims the claimant had brought against Law Lane Solicitors, which had been dismissed by Regional Employment Judge Taylor on 23 November 2020.

The claimant said the present claim differed because of the way the appeal process had been handled, including the absence of disciplinary notes and an opportunity to appeal. Judge Lewis did not accept that explanation as a basis for delay. He found that the claimant had trade union advice at least until his appeal hearing, held a law degree and the LPC, and could not satisfactorily explain why he had not brought the claims in time. His explanation about needing separate ACAS certificates and delay caused by lockdown and the COVID-19 pandemic was not accepted, and his own COVID illness was after the claims had been issued.

Judge Lewis held that it had been reasonably practicable to present each of the complaints in time and that there was no proper basis for extending time. He also held that bringing the same claims against named individuals after earlier claims against the employer had already been dismissed amounted to an abuse of process. The remaining complaints, including holiday pay, sick pay, arrears of pay, notice pay and unfair dismissal, were therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction. No monetary award was made.