Mrs Marie Robertson v Age Refined Limited — 2022

The tribunal first dealt with the claimant's use of a second ACAS early conciliation certificate when presenting the ET1 on 10 June 2021. It found that there had been an earlier ACAS certificate and an earlier rejected ET1, so the certificate relied on for the current claim was not the valid certificate for section 18A purposes. However, applying Rule 12(2ZA), the tribunal held that the claimant had made an understandable error and that it would not be in the interests of justice to reject the claim on that basis.

The tribunal then considered the age harassment part of the case under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. The claimant had set out four alleged incidents, but allegation 4, said to have occurred on 24 November 2020, had already been withdrawn at the hearing on the basis that it was not age-related and was dismissed under Rule 52. The remaining three alleged incidents were said to have occurred in October 2020, early November 2020, and mid-December 2020.

On the time-bar issue, the tribunal accepted that the remaining harassment complaints were brought outside the three-month time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. It considered the reasons advanced for delay, including the claimant's account that she wanted to keep her job, the evidence about ACAS contact and the redundancy process, and the conflicting evidence about the date of the Botox incident. It preferred Ms McLean's evidence on the disputed date, accepted the respondents' submission that delay would cause forensic prejudice, and held that it was not just and equitable to extend time.

The result was that the tribunal dismissed the age harassment part of the claim, while the remaining parts of the claim were left to proceed to a later final hearing. No financial remedy was assessed in this judgment.