In Person For the v Respondent — 2024

The claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal and direct disability and sex discrimination. At the preliminary hearing on 1 May 2024, the tribunal considered the respondent's strike-out application on limitation. The claimant had been dismissed with effect from 5 April 2023. She contacted ACAS on 5 July 2023, received the ACAS certificate on 10 July 2023, and presented the tribunal claim on 9 August 2023.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal held that the claim was out of time because the three-month limit expired on 4 July 2023. Early conciliation did not assist because it began after the limitation period had already expired. Applying s.111 ERA 1996 and the authorities it cited, including Porter v Bandridge Ltd and Reed in Partnership Ltd v Fraine, the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have filed in time. It accepted that she had mental health difficulties after dismissal, but noted that she knew there was a time limit, had researched it online, knew ACAS conciliation was required, and was able to file a claim.

On the discrimination claims, the tribunal held that the claim was out of time under s.123 Equality Act 2010 and that the ACAS provisions in s.140B did not extend the deadline because the limitation period had already expired before Day A. It found that the alleged acts did not amount to a continuing course of conduct: the disability allegations ranged from August 2020 to April 2023, involved different individuals, and included an allegation about staff speaking in languages other than English which was impossible to answer as pleaded. The tribunal also noted that the claimant did not give a clear explanation for the delay in bringing the historic allegations.

When considering whether it was just and equitable to extend time, the tribunal took into account the length of delay, the reasons for it, prejudice to both sides, and the apparent merits. It found that the claimant's case was framed as poor treatment which affected her mental health, rather than treatment because of disability or sex, and it considered the discrimination allegations lacking in merit for direct discrimination purposes. On balance, the tribunal decided not to extend time, and struck out the unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and sex discrimination claims for want of jurisdiction. No remedy was awarded.