Ms M Sharpe - Counsel For the 1st v Ms H Pryce – Solicitor For the 2nd Respondent: Mr L Dilaini - Counsel — 2022

Mrs Donya Henson is disabled within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of cerebral palsy. She worked for Milton Keynes Further Education Corportation and at HMP Woodhill, where she raised issues about her working hours, access to and from the prison, and the handling of information about those needs. The second respondent applied to strike out the complaints against it on the basis that they were out of time. The complaints identified for that purpose were failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment, and discrimination arising from disability.

Employment Judge Ord refused the strike-out application and extended the time for presenting the claim against the second respondent to 3 September 2021 under s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010. The judge treated the delay as very short and accepted that it was reasonable for the claimant initially to regard her employer as the potential respondent. The papers did not make clear the relationship between the first and second respondents, and the judge noted that the claimant's solicitors acted promptly once the second respondent's role was appreciated.

Applying the factors in British Coal Corporation v Keeble and the guidance in Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham, the judge said the central question was the balance of prejudice. The judge found no evidence that the second respondent's evidence would be affected, considered that there were issues to be determined which were not lacking in merit, and concluded that the prejudice to the claimant in losing the chance to pursue potentially valid claims outweighed the prejudice to the second respondent in having to defend them. The judgment did not determine the merits of the substantive complaints, and the judge said there was no need to decide whether the reasonable adjustments complaint had in fact been presented in time.