In person For the v Respondent — 2023

This was an open preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Alliott sitting alone on 19 April 2023. The issue was whether the claimant’s disability discrimination complaint, pleaded as a failure to make reasonable adjustments in claim number 3309822/2022, had been brought out of time and, if so, whether it was just and equitable to extend time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010.

The tribunal found that the relevant act complained of occurred on 10 February 2022, when the claimant was required to attend a fact-finding investigation meeting two hours from his home and normal place of work. On the tribunal’s calculation, the primary limitation period expired on 9 May 2022. The claimant notified Acas on 18 May 2022, received the early conciliation certificate on 20 June 2022, and presented the claim on 18 July 2022, so the claim was out of time by two months and nine days.

In deciding whether to extend time, the tribunal applied the just and equitable discretion under section 123 and referred to the principles in Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link and Cambridge and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust v Crouchman. The tribunal considered the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, and whether the respondent would be prejudiced. It found that the claimant knew in general terms about tribunal time limits and Acas early conciliation, but that he only concluded he had been discriminated against when he received documents on 18 May 2022 showing that most witness interviews had been conducted by Teams.

The tribunal also noted that the claimant had already pleaded the essential facts in his earlier claim, number 3305136/2022, including the allegation that he had been required to attend in person despite saying this would not be beneficial to his disability and that a Teams meeting could have been arranged. It accepted that the delay was understandable, that the respondent would not be prejudiced in the circumstances, and that the claim had been brought within a period that was just and equitable. The result was that the tribunal held it had jurisdiction to hear the disability reasonable adjustments claim. No financial remedy was awarded or considered at this hearing.