Ms Chandrika Punshon, litigant in person For the v Mrs J Bevan, solicitor — 2023

The claimant was a member of the National Education Union and the Tribunal set out the trade-organisation provisions in section 57 of the Equality Act 2010. It treated the pleaded case as complaints of sex discrimination and victimisation arising from the union's handling of her support and representation, and identified one specific email of 12 February 2019 from Darren Smith as the only act the claimant said was overtly discriminatory.

The Tribunal held that the claim was out of time. Applying section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, and taking the ACAS early conciliation period into account, it accepted the respondent's calculation that the earliest in-time date was 10 May 2021. The Tribunal concluded that the earlier complaints and correspondence could not be brought within time merely because later communications referred back to them. It relied on Lyfar v Brighton and Sussex and Aziz v FDA for the proposition that separate acts do not become a single continuing act simply because one leads to another or because successive office-holders respond to the same underlying complaint.

The Tribunal also considered whether time should be extended on a just and equitable basis, but found no sufficient basis for doing so. It noted that the claimant had referred to taking the respondent to an employment tribunal as early as January 2020 and again in January 2021, so she could not say she was unaware of the possibility of bringing a claim. Although she was a litigant in person, the Tribunal said she was a highly intelligent, well-educated and articulate person and therefore equipped to bring a timely claim if she wished.

The Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules, holding that it was out of time and had no reasonable prospects of success. It did not make any monetary award.