Case 3301143/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Vajagic (claimant’s son) For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 3301143/2021
- Decision date
- 27 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr A Vajagic (claimant’s son) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed on 12 February 2020 and appealed, but the tribunal found she did not receive a written appeal outcome. She contacted ACAS around the time of dismissal, continued looking for alternative work online, and later concluded in July 2020 that the respondent would not offer redeployment. She also had help from her son because of a hearing impairment, and she contacted a solicitor and ACAS again before issuing the claim on 12 February 2021.
On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal applied s111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996 and held that it had not been shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the three-month time limit. The tribunal relied on the claimant's ability to contact ACAS, search for work online, and obtain assistance from her son, and concluded that the claim was out of time. It struck out the unfair dismissal claim.
For the disability discrimination claim, the tribunal applied s123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 and considered whether it was just and equitable to extend time. The pleaded disability complaint related to tests in October 2019 and, on the claimant's case, a continuing act up to dismissal. The tribunal noted the length of the delay, the respondent's likely prejudice in calling witness evidence after a long lapse of time, and the claimant's reasons for delay, including the pandemic, her need for assistance, and her hope of redeployment. It also observed that the reasonable-adjustment point appeared weak because the claimant accepted in evidence that her problems with the tests were not related to her disability.
The tribunal reached the same time-limit conclusion on the sex claim, which it treated in the reasons as a post-termination sexual harassment allegation arising from an unwanted explicit photograph or photographs sent on 20 July 2020. It found that the respondent, apart from the individual employee concerned, had no knowledge of the event, that the matter had not been raised before the claim was issued, and that the tribunal could not extend time on a just and equitable basis. The tribunal therefore held that the sex and disability discrimination claims were out of time and struck them out.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Held out of time under s111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Held out of time under s123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010; the tribunal refused a just and equitable extension. The reasons included the claimant's hearing impairment and migraine evidence, but the tribunal also noted the pleaded reasonable-adjustment point had little or no prospect of success because the claimant said her problems with the tests were not related to her disability. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | Held out of time under s123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010; the tribunal refused a just and equitable extension. The reasons referred to a single post-termination incident on 20 July 2020 involving an unwanted explicit photograph or photographs, described in the reasons as a sexual harassment claim. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- s123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.