Mr S Iroh v Prime Secure Systems Ltd — 2020

This was a preliminary hearing on time limits and amendment issues. The claimant had originally presented his ET1 on 24 December 2020, but it was rejected on 30 December 2020 because the respondent's name did not match the ACAS certificate. On reconsideration, the defect was treated as rectified and the claim was regarded as presented on 7 January 2021. The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that he had been dealing with gastric health problems and stress after resignation, and it considered whether those matters, together with the ET1 defect, made it not reasonably practicable to present the claims in time.

For the dismissal claim, the tribunal extended time and held that it had jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal claim. It accepted that the claimant believed the 24 December 2020 ET1 was valid and in time, that his error in naming the respondent was genuine and unintentional, and that he only learned of the rejection after the limitation period had expired. The tribunal concluded that a further delay of 11 days was not unreasonable in the circumstances. The judgment background identified the complaint as constructive unfair dismissal, although the operative ruling used the label unfair dismissal.

The tribunal dismissed the holiday pay and protected disclosure detriment complaints. For holiday pay, it found no persuasive evidence that anything prevented the claimant from bringing a tribunal claim within the applicable period, noting that the underpayments dated from 2017 and 2018 and that the claimant had already pursued court proceedings and knew about tribunal time limits. For the detriment complaint, it found that the alleged acts were the August 2019 disciplinary proceedings and that no sufficient reason had been shown to justify an extension, stating that it would not have allowed more than 16 months in any event.

The tribunal extended time for the direct race discrimination complaint only in respect of the 22 September 2020 allegation about the new patrol path and lighting. It did not accept that the August 2019 disciplinary allegations and the September 2020 complaint formed a continuing course of conduct. In carrying out the just and equitable assessment, it accepted the claimant's genuine ET1 error and his ill-health evidence, and it balanced the prejudice to both parties before allowing the September 2020 race discrimination allegation to proceed. No substantive remedy was determined at this preliminary stage.