In person For the v Respondent — 2023

This was a public preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Andrew Clarke KC dealing with two procedural questions: whether there had been a Rule 21 judgment to set aside, and whether the unlawful disability discrimination claim had been presented in time. The tribunal found that no judgment in favour of the claimant had in fact been issued, so there was nothing to set aside.

The claimant's claim form had been presented on 1 March 2021, and the parties agreed the primary limitation date was either 25 February or 28 February 2021. The judge held it was not necessary to resolve that distinction because the claim had been presented outside the primary period and the question was whether it was just and equitable to extend time.

The claimant's witness statement said he had cancer during the primary limitation period, had undergone chemotherapy until 31 December 2020, and was very unwell, upset and stressed after his dismissal. The tribunal accepted that explanation for the short delay, applied the just and equitable extension principles with reference to section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 and British Coal Corporation v Keeble, and considered the length and reason for the delay, cogency of evidence, and prejudice to each party.

The judge found the delay was short, adequately explained, and unlikely to have affected the cogency of evidence. He also noted that the respondent had itself suffered delay in presenting its response. Balancing prejudice, he extended time to 1 March 2021, held the claim was presented in time, and confirmed that the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear it. The judge expressly made no view on the claim's merits.