No attendance For the v Respondent — 2022

Ms D Pope brought an ET1 alleging unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and other payments. The tribunal noted that the claimant did not attend the open preliminary hearing by CVP, although the hearing had been relisted after an earlier postponement and the tribunal had tried to contact her by telephone and email when she failed to appear. The ET1 was described as homemade, the disability discrimination allegation was unparticularised, and there was no clear pleading of any separate payment claim.

The tribunal found that the claims were presented out of time. It treated the effective date of termination as 21 October 2021 and said the ordinary three-month limitation period expired on 20 January 2022. Even allowing for Acas early conciliation, the most generous calculation required presentation by 19 February 2022, whereas the tribunal found that the claim was presented on 3 March 2022. The judgment contains an inconsistent reference in one place to 3 March 2021, but the tribunal's reasoning on time limits proceeded on the later 3 March 2022 date.

For unfair dismissal, and any unlawful deduction of wages claim insofar as one existed, the tribunal applied the 'not reasonably practicable' test under s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996 and declined to extend time. It recorded an email from the claimant saying she had been struggling with her mental health, felt overwhelmed completing the form, and had suffered a breakdown at work, but noted that she was not present to be questioned, no medical evidence was provided, and her steps once the claim was late were not explained. The claims were therefore struck out.

For disability discrimination, the tribunal applied the 'just and equitable' test under s.123 Equality Act 2010 and again refused to extend time. It noted that the claim was wholly unformed, that no medical evidence had been produced to support disabled status under s.6 Equality Act 2010, that the delay was not fully explained or evidenced, and that the respondents had already been involved in the proceedings for over a year. On that basis, the disability discrimination claim was also struck out.