Mr A Francis, Lay representative For the v Respondent — 2020

This was a preliminary hearing to decide whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s complaints, or whether they were out of time. The claimant alleged unfair dismissal under ss.98 and 99 ERA 1996 and separate pregnancy discrimination complaints under s.18 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal recorded that the effective date of termination was 20 November 2018, Acas early conciliation took place between 18 February 2019 and 18 March 2019, and the claim was presented on 16 May 2019, which was accepted as 28 days late.

On the unfair dismissal complaint, the tribunal applied the s.111 ERA 1996 time limit and the two-stage question of whether it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and, if not, whether the period sought was reasonable. The claimant said that complications after giving birth to twins on 12 March 2019 meant she was incapacitated, but the tribunal noted that no medical evidence was produced. It also relied on the covering letter sent with the claim, which referred to the claimant’s life being a “huge learning curve and chaos” after the birth, but did not mention medical incapacity.

The tribunal found that the claimant had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to present the unfair dismissal claim by 18 April 2019. In any event, even if it had not been reasonably practicable, the tribunal held that extending time by 28 days to 16 May 2019 was not reasonable. It noted that the claimant and/or her representative knew the claim was out of time, that she met her representative in the first week of May, and that the claim was based on facts already rehearsed in her grievance and appeal.

For the pregnancy discrimination complaints, the tribunal applied the s.123 Equality Act 2010 just and equitable test and considered prejudice, the length and reasons for delay, promptness, the absence of professional advice, and the effect on evidence. It accepted that there was no forensic prejudice to the respondent and no suggestion that the cogency of evidence had been affected, but found that the claimant had waited until late before contacting Acas, had not acted promptly in presenting the claim, and had relied on a lay representative rather than professional advice. Balancing those factors, the tribunal refused to extend time. The judgment therefore records that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear any of the complaints and struck the claim out.