Mr M Dickinson-Hennessy v Valunation Limited and 3 others — 2022

The tribunal held that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim was out of time. The effective date of termination was agreed as 4 May 2021 and the primary limitation period expired on 3 August 2021. The tribunal found that the claimant did not present the ET1 or start ACAS early conciliation until after that date, and rejected his explanation that he believed he did not need to issue a tribunal claim until the grievance appeal process had concluded. It found he had the ability, opportunity and information to check the time limit, obtain advice and present the claim in time.

For the same reasons, the breach of contract claim was dismissed. The tribunal treated the contractual jurisdictional time limit as materially the same question and concluded that the claim was not within the tribunal's jurisdiction. In relation to the age discrimination complaints, the tribunal said the pleaded issues concerned the refusal of promotion in 2020, the grievance outcome dated 29 April 2021, and the continued failure to conclude the grievance appeal. It held that the claims against Mr Atter and Mr Davies were out of time because their latest pleaded acts were in March 2020 and no just and equitable extension was warranted.

By contrast, the tribunal found it was reasonably arguable that the age discrimination case against Valunation Ltd and Mr Lancaster involved a continuing act for limitation purposes. On the pleadings before it, it was not prepared to strike those claims out, and said the liability hearing would need to determine the merits and any further jurisdictional issue under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010.

The tribunal allowed an amendment to add victimisation allegations based on the grievance and grievance appeal. It noted that those matters had already been raised in the claimant's May 2021 grounds of appeal, that the respondent was already aware of the factual substance of the complaint, and that allowing the amendment would not materially worsen case management or prejudice the respondent. It refused permission to amend to add a section 15 disability discrimination claim based on asthma, stress and anxiety, finding that the proposed claim had not been foreshadowed in the ET1 or grievance documents, raised different and more complex issues, and would likely increase delay, cost and the risk of an adjournment.