Did not attend and was not represented For the v Clarion Housing Group Ltd — 2018

The claimant did not attend the hearing. The Tribunal proceeded in his absence under Rule 47, relying mainly on the ET1, the respondent’s response, and the respondent’s submissions. The only claims identified were unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation under the Equality Act 2010.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the Tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed following a disciplinary hearing on 6 December 2018 for gross misconduct, with a dismissal letter dated 11 December 2018. Even taking 11 December 2018 as the effective date for time purposes, the claim lodged on 29 March 2019 was outside the three-month limit. Applying s.111(2) ERA 1996 and the authorities cited on reasonable practicability, the Tribunal was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. It noted that the claimant had been represented by a UNISON officer, that there was no evidence of misleading advice, and that the claimant’s reference to mental health issues was unsupported by details showing an impediment to filing.

The discrimination complaint was also found to be out of time. The Tribunal treated the dismissal date as the relevant long-stop date for the last possible discriminatory act on the material before it, and held that more than three months had elapsed before the ET1 was presented. Applying s.123 Equality Act 2010 and the cases cited on the just and equitable discretion, including Robertson v Bexley Community Centre and British Coal Corporation v Keeble, the Tribunal declined to extend time. It took into account the length of the delay, the limited particulars of the allegation, the claimant’s non-attendance, the prejudice to the respondent, and the absence of a strong merits case on the material available.

Accordingly, all claims in the proceedings were dismissed and no monetary remedy was awarded.