Mr Christopher Vlassis v Smart Metering Systems plc — 2021

This was a preliminary hearing on jurisdiction and substitution in Mr Christopher Vlassis’s claims against Smart Metering Systems Plc. The tribunal recorded that the claimant’s case was one of constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, that the respondent was the parent company of CH4 Gas Utility and Maintenance Services Limited, and that CH4 was the claimant’s actual employer. The claimant’s employment ended on 4 March 2020, early conciliation began on 23 July 2020, the ACAS certificate issued on 12 August 2020, and the claim form was presented on 11 September 2020.

The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed as outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction. Applying section 111 ERA 1996 and the reasonably practicable test, the tribunal held that early conciliation ought to have started by 3 June 2020 and had not been commenced until 27 July 2020. It found that the claimant was fit for work, had internet access, was preparing a grievance in May and June 2020, and had not shown that his understanding of tribunal time limits or the impact of family matters and the pandemic made it not reasonably practicable to bring the claim in time. The tribunal also held that the claim form was not presented within a reasonable period after the ACAS certificate.

The disability discrimination claim was also dismissed as outside jurisdiction. The tribunal assumed, for limitation purposes, that any relevant acts extended to 4 March 2020, but found that it was not just and equitable to allow the claim to proceed late under section 123 Equality Act 2010. It noted that no medical evidence had been produced, the claimant had not shown that he was likely to meet the definition of disability, and the discrimination case had not been clearly articulated. The tribunal considered the prospects of success to be very low and concluded that the hardship to the respondent in having to defend the claim outweighed the hardship to the claimant in not being permitted to proceed.

The tribunal said that if it had needed to decide the substitution application, it would have allowed CH4 Gas Utility and Maintenance Services Limited to be substituted as the correct respondent, because it was the claimant’s employer. That issue did not affect the result, because both claims were dismissed for want of jurisdiction.