Ms Katarzyna Krupinska, representative (a friend of the claimant) For the v Respondent — 2022

Ms Slawik presented a first claim form on 12 January 2021, but it was rejected on 26 January 2021 because the respondent named on the ET1 did not match the prospective respondent named on the ACAS early conciliation certificate. She said she did not learn of the rejection until 20 April 2021, when she and Ms Krupinska then filed a second claim form the same day. The case before Employment Judge Hyams was a preliminary hearing on time limits and jurisdiction, not the substantive merits of the discrimination allegations.

The tribunal held that the unpaid wages claim was outside the employment tribunal's jurisdiction. Applying the reasonably practicable test under section 23(4) ERA 1996, the judge found that the claimant or Ms Krupinska could and should have checked the position after the claim had been outstanding for around 25 days, or at least within 28 to 42 days, rather than waiting longer. The judge also considered that the claimant could have used rule 13 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 to seek reconsideration of the rejection of the first claim form, and that there was a good chance the rejection would have been reversed.

By contrast, the tribunal extended time for the pregnancy or maternity discrimination claim on a just and equitable basis under section 123(1)(b) EqA 2010. The judge took into account the claimant's reliance on Ms Krupinska, the lockdown context, the claimant's distraction following her pregnancy and new baby, and the fact that the second claim was filed on the day the rejection was discovered. The judge also noted that the claim was not obviously without merit, but the merits of the discrimination complaint were left to be dealt with separately.