EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100860/2022 Held on July 2022 by Cloud Video Platform Employment Judge N M Hosie Ms S lyyaz v Represented by Mr G Singh, Solicitor Affinity Trust — 2022

This was a preliminary issue hearing on limitation only. The claimant brought complaints of constructive unfair dismissal and race discrimination. Her employment ended on 15 September 2021, the ACAS early conciliation certificate was issued on 15 December 2021, and the claim form was lodged on 1 February 2022, which the claimant accepted was 18 days out of time. The tribunal therefore considered whether either complaint could proceed despite the late presentation.

On the unfair dismissal complaint, the tribunal applied s.111(2) ERA 1996 and the approach in Palmer & Saunders v Southend-On-Sea Borough Council. The claimant relied on dental treatment, Type 1 diabetes, stress, and difficulties concentrating. The tribunal found that her evidence about those matters was inconsistent and that they did not prevent timely presentation of the claim. It noted that she had only two dental appointments in the relevant period, no GP report or medical records were produced, and there was no evidence of extra GP appointments or additional medication. The tribunal also took account of the fact that by late November 2021 she knew there was a three-month time limit, had assistance from her daughter, and had written to the respondent on 8 December 2021 stating that she intended to take the matter to an employment tribunal. It held that it had been feasible to present the claim in time, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction and the unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed.

On the race discrimination complaint, the tribunal applied s.123(1)(a) and (b) Equality Act 2010 and referred to British Coal Corporation v Keeble & Others, Adedeji v University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, and Robertson v Bexley Community Centre. It accepted that the claim was 18 days late but was not persuaded that the claimant's health issues caused the delay. The tribunal considered the claimant's knowledge of tribunal time limits, her daughter’s assistance, the lack of medical evidence, the need for finality in litigation, and the prejudice to the respondent if the claim were allowed to proceed. It concluded that it would not be just and equitable to extend time, so the discrimination complaint was also dismissed for want of jurisdiction. No remedy was awarded.