Mr Frater (Solicitor). For the v Respondent — 2021

Mr Paul Atkins had been employed by Support 4 Sight since 3 July 2003 as Resource Centre and Volunteer Manager. Following redundancy consultation in January and February 2020, Mr Hyams' letter of 18 February 2020 said Mr Atkins would work part of his 12-week notice period up to 9 April 2020, with the balance paid in lieu. Mr Atkins in fact worked until 9 April 2020, then received a P45 showing that leaving date and a payslip showing monthly pay, redundancy pay and notice pay. He issued ACAS early conciliation for the first respondent on 20 May 2020, for Mr Hyams on 19 August 2020, and presented his ET1 on 19 August 2020.

The tribunal held that the effective date of termination was 9 April 2020. On that basis, the primary three-month limitation period expired on 8 July 2020. Early conciliation for the first respondent extended time only to 23 July 2020, so the unfair dismissal and whistleblowing claims against that respondent were still four weeks late. The claim against Mr Hyams did not benefit from any extension because early conciliation for him began after the primary time limit had already expired. The tribunal rejected arguments that later correspondence or the fact that Mr Atkins worked to 9 April 2020 altered the legal termination date.

On the unfair dismissal and whistleblowing claims, the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present proceedings in time. It relied on Mr Atkins' evidence that he had researched his legal rights online, and on the fact that he consulted Mr Frater on 2 May 2020, by which point it was plainly possible to issue in time. For the discrimination claims, including failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment related to disability and victimisation, the tribunal applied the just and equitable test under s.123 EqA 2010 and declined to extend time. It took account of Mr Atkins' disability, bereavements, pandemic circumstances and reliance on screen reader technology, but concluded that he had legal advice from an early stage and there was no reason why the claims could not have been issued within the statutory period. All claims, including the amended victimisation claim, were dismissed for want of jurisdiction as out of time.