Mr Barrie Thornton v Unity Education Trust OPEN PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2021

Mr Barrie Thornton brought claims for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination arising from his employment with Unity Education Trust. The tribunal recorded that he had been employed from 18 November 2013, was suspended in July 2019 after internal proceedings began over allegations of inappropriate behaviour and safeguarding concerns, was invited to a disciplinary hearing for 6 November 2019, and resigned on 5 November 2019. The tribunal found that, on any view, the effective date of termination was no later than 6 November 2019, despite the claim form giving 12 December 2019 as the termination date.

At the preliminary hearing the claimant said that between 24 August and 18 December 2019 he was homeless and sleeping rough or living in a van, that this affected his mental health, and that he had later taken medication, counselling, and a period of part-time work between January and March 2020. He also said he had taken advice from a solicitor, his union, and ACAS, and had used the internet to look up tribunal information. The tribunal accepted that he had mental impairments and homelessness, but found that these did not prevent him from seeking advice, working, or making enquiries about tribunal proceedings. It therefore held there was no evidence that it was not reasonably practicable to present the unfair dismissal claim in time under s.111(2) ERA 1996, and in any event the further delay after speaking to ACAS was not a reasonable further period.

For the Equality Act claim, the tribunal applied the three-month time limit in s.123 Equality Act 2010 and considered whether it would be just and equitable to extend time. It took into account the age of the complaints, the fact that memories would have faded, and the prejudice to the respondent in gathering witness evidence so long after the events. It also noted that the case appeared principally to concern safeguarding issues and had little to do with the alleged disability, and described the claim as weak and unlikely to succeed. On that basis it refused to extend time and dismissed the disability discrimination complaint as well. No remedy was awarded.