Mr Van Heck, Counsel. For the v Respondent — 2019

The claimant presented his ET1 on 31 July 2017 and ticked unfair dismissal, race discrimination and disability discrimination. The ET1 said he had been sacked without formal warning and referred only generally to a mental impairment; it did not particularise the discrimination complaints. At the hearing, the claimant said the race complaint was based on an allegation that his supervisor required Spanish speakers, and the disability complaint was based on paranoid schizophrenia and alleged comments made at the dismissal hearing.

On limitation, the tribunal found that the unfair dismissal claim was presented outside the three-month time limit in s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996 and that it was reasonably practicable to have presented it in time. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had union representation and later solicitors, and that he said he received the ACAS early conciliation certificate in late December 2016, but it found there was no evidence from the solicitors and no explanation for the further delay until the claim was filed on 31 July 2017. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore struck out.

The tribunal then considered the assumed disability and race discrimination complaints under s.123 Equality Act 2010 and the just and equitable test. Applying the approach in Robertson v Bexley Community Centre, it found there was no evidence to justify extending time. The complaints were about six months late, no particulars had been given in the ET1, and the claimant had not explained why the claim was not brought sooner. The tribunal therefore declined to extend time and struck out the discrimination complaints.

The respondent had sought costs following an earlier order and asked for summary assessment of £800 for the February 2019 hearing and £1,250 for the June 2019 hearing. The tribunal found the threshold for costs had been reached, but after considering the claimant's means under rule 84 it made no order as to costs.