Mr S Millin v The Priory / Partnerships in Care Limited and 1 other — 2025

At the public preliminary hearing on 24 April 2025, Judge Dobbie considered whether time should be extended for the Claimant’s claims. The Claimant’s pleaded claims were unfair dismissal against the Second Respondent and direct discrimination because of race and sex against both Respondents. The tribunal accepted that the relevant events occurred in September and October 2019, while ACAS early conciliation did not begin until 4 March 2024 and the claim form was presented on 5 April 2024, so the claims were about 4.5 years late.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal applied the s.111 ERA 1996 time-limit test and concluded that it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant to have presented the claim in time. The tribunal found that from September 2019 the Claimant knew his employment had ended and knew the facts giving rise to the claim, while the later DBS, NMC, mental health, and family difficulties did not explain the earlier period. It also found that his ignorance of tribunal rights was unreasonable, given that he was intelligent, qualified, computer literate, and could have searched his rights or taken advice sooner. The tribunal further held that even after he became aware of the right to claim, he delayed further before presenting proceedings.

On the discrimination claims, the tribunal applied the s.123 EqA 2010 just and equitable test and declined to extend time. It accepted that the Claimant had been under significant pressure from later DBS and NMC processes and personal difficulties, and considered the length of delay, the likely loss or fading of evidence, promptness, advice, and prejudice. On the merits, however, the tribunal found there was no basis for inferring that race or sex was the reason for the alleged less favourable treatment. It noted that some of the people relied on as comparators were themselves black and some were male, which undermined the asserted race and sex comparisons. Balancing all the factors, the tribunal held that it would not be just and equitable to extend time, and all claims were struck out for want of jurisdiction.