In Person, with an Interpreter in the Tamil Language v Respondent — 2020

This was the claimant’s second tribunal claim after his employment with London Sovereign Limited ended following allegations of gross misconduct on 8 August 2017. The tribunal noted that an earlier claim had already been struck out because the wrong respondent had been named. In this claim, the claimant had started employment as a bus driver on 29 October 2007, was suspended on 19 June 2017, dismissed on 8 August 2017, and his appeal was dismissed on 21 August 2017. He later commenced early conciliation on 28 June 2018 and presented this claim on 1 July 2018, which the tribunal treated as identical in substance to the first claim.

On the unfair dismissal complaint, the tribunal applied section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the authorities in Wall’s Meat Co Ltd v Khan and Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council. It found that the relevant acts occurred on or before 8 August 2017 and that early conciliation against the correct respondent should have been started no later than 7 November 2017. The claimant did not do so until 28 June 2018, more than seven months late. The tribunal accepted that he had made a mistake in naming the respondent in the first case, but found no evidence that this was attributable to his medical conditions. It also found that the respondent’s name appeared in his contract, that he knew of the time limits, and that he had already managed to present the first claim in time.

On the disability discrimination complaint, the tribunal applied section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and the just and equitable test, referring to Robertson v Bexley Community Centre, Palmer and Saunders, British Coal Corpn v Keeble, Chohan v Derby Law Centre and Virdi v Comr of Police of the Metropolis. It held that the delay was considerable, that no satisfactory explanation had been given, and that there was a substantial risk of prejudice because the events dated back to at least 2015 and memories would have faded. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had long-standing medical complaints, including Central Auditory Processing Disorder and acute anxiety after suspension, but found that he had sought advice from the CAB, ACAS and a solicitor and that there was no evidence the advisers were at fault.

The tribunal concluded that the claimant had not shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present the unfair dismissal claim in time, and had not shown that it would be just and equitable to extend time for the disability discrimination claim. It therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim and struck it out as having no reasonable prospect of success.