Mr Henry Halpin v Represented by:10 Ms A O’Donnell - Solicitor Robertson Facilities Management Limited — 2024

This was an open preliminary hearing to decide whether Mr Halpin’s age discrimination claim was in time. The tribunal accepted that the last act relied on occurred on 1 July 2022 and that the claim was not accepted until 11 December 2023, around 14 months late. The claimant had started work for Robertson Facilities Management Limited in May 2022, had an altercation with colleagues on 1 July 2022, and was taken to hospital on 2 July 2022, after which he was diagnosed with transient global amnesia and experienced memory loss and anxiety.

The claimant had lodged a detailed grievance with help from his daughter, who worked in HR. The grievance referred to age-related comments, intimidation, bullying and harassment. The respondent investigated, found that a heated discussion had taken place, but concluded there was no evidence the discussion related to age and described it as a poor joke rather than a reference to age. The grievance appeal was partially upheld on the basis that the comments were offensive and inappropriate, but the respondent again found no evidence of age discrimination and offered support for the claimant’s return to work.

Applying section 123 Equality Act 2010 and the authorities the tribunal identified, including Chohan v Derby Law Centre, British Coal Corporation v Keeble, Abertawe v Morgan, Robertson v Bexley Community Services, Chief Constable of Lincolnshire v Caston, Rathakrishnan v Pizza Express, Lowri Beck Services v Brophy and Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, the tribunal considered prejudice, the length and reason for delay, the effect on cogency of evidence, promptness, and steps taken to obtain advice. It found there was no evidence the claimant could not have brought the claim sooner; rather, he chose to focus on his health, possible settlement and other matters, despite knowing about tribunal time limits through his daughter and other advice.

The tribunal placed weight on the likely prejudice to the respondent from the passage of time. Relevant witnesses were no longer employed, some may have been hard to trace, and the case would depend largely on oral evidence about events in 2022. It concluded that the delay materially affected the respondent’s ability to defend the claim and that a fair hearing would be compromised. For those reasons, the tribunal held that it was not just and equitable to extend time and dismissed the claim.