IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case No: 4107211/2022 Issued Following Open Preliminary Hearing Held at Edinburgh on the nd of May 2023 Employment Judge J G d’lnverno v , Solicitor Ms B D Barisauskaite Brewin Dolphin Limited — 2023

This was an open preliminary hearing about the time limit for disability discrimination complaints brought by Ms B D Barisauskaite against Brewin Dolphin Limited. The tribunal assumed for the limited purpose of the hearing that the claimant was disabled, and focused on whether complaints said to arise before 8 September 2022 were out of time under section 123(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010 and whether time should be extended under section 123(1)(b). The claimant was not present and was represented by a solicitor; evidence was given by her nominated next of kin, Ms Loreta Mikulyte, whom the tribunal found credible and reliable.

The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed since 19 April 2022 and had been on sick leave from 20 July 2022. It accepted that by reason of the claimant’s post-19 July 2022 impairments and memory loss she was not capable of understanding, engaging with, or communicating about a potential right of action until around 19/20 October 2022. It found that the claimant’s friends, particularly Ms Mikulyte, then contacted the claimant’s trade union on 20 October 2022, but that the forms needed to progress matters could not be completed and returned until 17 November 2022 because of the practical difficulties described in the evidence. There was no explanation before the tribunal for the further period between 18 November and 6 December 2022, when solicitors were instructed.

Applying the just and equitable test, the tribunal extended time to 7 December 2022, holding that the explanation for delay up to 17 November 2022 was sufficient and that the further short unexplained period did not justify refusing an extension in the circumstances. It found no forensic prejudice from the 7 week and 1 day delay and considered that a fair trial remained possible, while noting that the claimant’s memory issues and the future prospects of pursuing the claim might later raise different questions, including possible strike out. The tribunal therefore allowed the disability discrimination complaints to proceed for the period covered by the extended time limit, but it also held that the claims as presently drafted still lacked sufficient specification and ordered further particulars, followed by a revised ET3 and an updated medical report from Dr Fitzgerald.