Mr C Stewart v Asda Stores Limited — 2020

The preliminary hearing considered whether the sexual harassment complaint had been presented in time and, if not, whether it was just and equitable to allow it to proceed. The respondent also applied to strike out that complaint because the claimant had not complied with an order to provide a witness statement on time bar. The Tribunal accepted there had been non-compliance, but refused to strike out on that basis because the parties were present, the issue was narrow, and the respondent had not in fact suffered prejudice from the absence of the statement.

The alleged sexual harassment occurred by 19 September 2018. The claimant contacted ACAS on 17 January 2019 and presented his tribunal claim on 25 February 2019. The claim form did not identify a sexual harassment complaint, and details were provided later, after preliminary case management. The Tribunal found the claimant had not contacted ACAS within three months of the alleged act and that the sexual harassment complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit.

Applying the just and equitable extension issue, the Tribunal considered the length and reasons for delay, the effect on evidence, cooperation with information requests, promptness, and steps to obtain advice. It did not find the claimant's reasons for delay entirely credible and concluded it was not just and equitable to extend time. The sexual harassment complaint therefore could not proceed, while the unfair dismissal and automatically unfair dismissal for protected disclosure claims were left to proceed to a final hearing.