In person For v Ms. Laughton, Solicitor — 2023

The claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination after she was dismissed without notice on 18 June 2021. The tribunal first considered the effective date of termination. Although the dismissal letter was sent on 18 June 2021, it was not read and the tribunal found that the claimant did not have a reasonable opportunity to read it until after a month had passed. It therefore held that the termination took effect on 17 July 2021, so the limitation date for starting ACAS conciliation or presenting claims was 16 October 2021.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had mental health difficulties and that her condition fluctuated, but it found that she was actively pursuing matters during August and had contact with HR, Rob, CAB and ACAS-related advice by early October 2021. The tribunal relied in particular on the claimant's own email of 5 October 2021, which referred to being in the middle of a claim for unfair dismissal and stress at work, as showing that she knew she had a claim and had received advice about time limits. It found there was no specific reason why she could not have started proceedings before 16 October 2021, so it was reasonably practicable to do so in time. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore out of time and the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear it.

For disability discrimination, the ET1 did not set out the alleged discriminatory acts in any detail. The tribunal took the most generous view and treated the dismissal itself as the complained-of act, but still found the claim out of time. Applying the broader 'just and equitable' test, it held that the short delay before ACAS conciliation did not assist the claimant because she had already been able to take other steps about her employment situation, had not acted promptly once she knew of the time issue, and had given little detail about the alleged discrimination. The tribunal also noted that the available material suggested there may have been other complaints stretching back to 2018, which would make the Respondent's investigation harder and could affect the cogency of evidence. It decided it was not just and equitable to extend time, so the disability discrimination claim was also outside jurisdiction and struck out.