In person For the v Respondent — 2019

The claimant was employed by the respondent from 16 April 2018 to 14 September 2018 as a Finance Business Partner. He presented a claim on 22 April 2019 after early conciliation between 7 and 22 March 2019. The tribunal treated the issue as whether it was just and equitable to extend time for the race discrimination complaint, which concerned alleged denial of the opportunity to be fairly assessed for one permanent role and not being interviewed for another, with appointments said to have been made on 1 May and 22 May 2018.

The tribunal found that the primary limitation period had expired before the claim was issued. On the claimant's case, he was already complaining about the treatment by 13 July 2018, so the three-month period would have expired on 12 October 2018. Even if time ran from the end of employment on 14 September 2018, the period would have expired on 13 December 2018. The claim issued on 22 April 2019 was therefore several months late.

Applying section 123 of the Equality Act and the authorities it cited, including Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link and British Coal Corporation v Keeble and others, the tribunal held that the claimant had not shown it was just and equitable to extend time. It found he was aware of the three-month time limit from earlier tribunal experience and legal advice, including advice in December 2018 that he had missed the deadline. It also found he knew the material facts in July 2018, had no good reason for the delay, did not act promptly once he knew of the facts, and had access to advice in November 2018.

The tribunal accepted that there was prejudice to both sides if time were or were not extended, but concluded that, taking all the circumstances together, it would not be just and equitable to extend time. The judgment therefore dismissed the race discrimination claims as out of time; the reasons also state that the claims were struck out after that conclusion was reached. No monetary remedy was awarded.