In person (assisted by interpreter on first day and then by his brother on second day). For the v Respondent — 2023

This was a reserved judgment on the respondent's strikeout and deposit application, not a merits hearing. The claimant had brought claims framed as race harassment, sexual-orientation harassment, race discrimination, sexual-orientation discrimination and victimisation, alongside purported additional section 39 Equality Act claims. The tribunal applied the three-month time limit in section 123 Equality Act 2010 and found that the claimant had not provided evidence to justify a just and equitable extension of time, nor material showing a reasonably arguable continuing act.

For harassment relating to race, the tribunal held that the allegations before 29 October 2021 were out of time and could not be linked into one continuing course of conduct. It noted gaps between incidents, that many complaints involved different individuals, and that the claimant had not put forward a sufficient link between the earlier allegations and the two in-time incidents on 21 November 2021 and 16 December 2021. Those two in-time allegations were not struck out, but the tribunal said they had little reasonable prospect of success and made deposit orders of £100 for each.

For harassment relating to sexual orientation, the tribunal found that all alleged acts were out of time and dismissed the claim. The direct discrimination claims on the grounds of race and sexual orientation were likewise largely out of time. The tribunal struck out the earlier allegations and treated the remaining in-time matters, including the Nobby and Zack allegations and the alleged failure to address the November 2021 complaint, as discrete allegations subject to deposit orders rather than final findings.

The victimisation claim was struck out because the claimant had not identified a protected act within section 27 Equality Act 2010, and the alleged detriments were also out of time. The tribunal also struck out the purported section 39 Equality Act claims because section 39 does not itself create a separate cause of action. The judgment cited Rule 37 and Rule 39 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, section 123 Equality Act 2010, and the authorities in Aziz, Lyfar, Grecho, Robertson and Caston on continuing acts, time limits and extensions.