Case 4104204/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S McCaffrey v Represented by: Mr J Lawson - Solicitor The Chief Constable of — 2024
- Case reference
- 4104204/2023
- Decision date
- 17 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Murphy
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S McCaffrey
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr McCaffrey, a police staff Controller and conceded disabled person, applied for appointment as a probationary police constable. He received a provisional offer on 18 October 2019, but after a medical assessment Dr Ahmed wrote on 19 February 2020 that a two-year period of good mental health without treatment was required before he would be considered suitable, and the offer was withdrawn. The claimant’s complaints under sections 13, 15, 19 and 20 of the Equality Act 2010 all arose from that withdrawal.
The tribunal held that time started to run at the latest on 19 February 2020 and that the three-month limit expired on 18 May 2020. The claim was not presented until 4 August 2023, more than three years late. The claimant was found to have genuinely believed that no time limit applied and that he needed a solicitor to bring a claim, but he also knew soon after the withdrawal that some form of legal challenge might be possible and took no steps to investigate time limits within the limitation period or for years afterwards.
Applying the just and equitable test under s.123(1)(b), the tribunal accepted that the complaints disclosed triable issues and that much of the key documentary evidence appeared to remain available. It also accepted that the claimant acted promptly once he learned of the time limit in August 2023. However, it found his belief that no time limits applied was not reasonable for an intelligent and resourceful person with internet research skills, and it placed significant weight on the very substantial delay, the importance of legal certainty, and the risk that witnesses’ recollections would be less fresh. The tribunal therefore refused to extend time and dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Section 13 direct discrimination complaint dismissed because the tribunal held the claim was presented out of time and refused to extend time under s.123(1)(b). | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 15 discrimination arising from disability complaint dismissed because the tribunal held the claim was presented out of time and refused to extend time under s.123(1)(b). | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 19 indirect discrimination complaint dismissed because the tribunal held the claim was presented out of time and refused to extend time under s.123(1)(b). | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Section 20 reasonable adjustments complaint dismissed because the tribunal held the claim was presented out of time and refused to extend time under s.123(1)(b). | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010 time limit
- just and equitable extension
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- Pearce v Bank of America Merrill Lynch
- Miller and Ors v The Ministry of Justice
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Kumari v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
- Wall's Meat v Khan
- Averns v Stagecoach in Warwickshire
- Bowden v Ministry of Justice
- Hunwicks v Royal Mail Group plc
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.