Ms Karen Conaghan v Iag Gbs Ltd Record of an Open Preliminary Hearing — 2023

This was an open preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Alliott sitting alone on 17 April 2023. The tribunal dealt with limitation issues for the claimant's harassment and victimisation allegations, sexual harassment allegations, and an application to amend the claim. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr Guy Hollebon, solicitor.

For the allegations against Mr Aziz and Mr Collins, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had a reasonably arguable basis for saying the complaints were linked with those against Mr Neta as part of a continuing act or ongoing state of affairs. The judge noted that the claimant alleged she was targeted as the only female employee on her team, and therefore declined to decide the time-limit point finally at the preliminary hearing. The respondent was left free to argue at the full merits hearing that any or all of those allegations were out of time, were not part of a connected series of events, or should not have time extended on a just and equitable basis.

The tribunal reached a different conclusion on the sexual harassment allegations said to have occurred in September 2019 and on 27 November 2019. It found those allegations were more than two years out of time. In considering whether it was just and equitable to extend time, the judge took into account the claimant's explanation for delay, including that she was in probation, wanted to fit in, said she did not know her rights, and referred to covid and lockdown, but the judge did not accept those points as sufficient. The tribunal also noted the claimant's education, union membership and potential access to advice. Those sexual harassment claims were therefore struck out for lack of jurisdiction.

The tribunal granted the claimant permission to amend the claim to add an allegation against Mr Shahid Aziz that he failed to send a leaving card or acknowledge her contribution or existence within the company on 27 December 2021. The judge noted that the claimant only became aware of the point from the respondent's response, that the amendment would not delay the case or increase costs, and that there was no real prejudice to the respondent. No monetary award was made at this hearing.