Claimant v Lothian Buses Limited — 2022

The claimant, Mr T Montgomery, was employed by Lothian Buses Limited from 1 July 2014 to 17 May 2021. His ET1 included complaints of unfair constructive dismissal, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment related to disability, but this preliminary hearing determined only whether the harassment complaint was presented within time or within such other period as the tribunal considered just and equitable under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010.

The claimant confirmed that the harassment complaint relied only on two alleged events, dated 16 December 2019 and 2 July 2020. For the purposes of the preliminary hearing, the tribunal assumed those events occurred and heard evidence only on whether time should be extended. The tribunal found that, even treating the allegations at their highest as a continuing act, the last alleged act was on 2 July 2020 and the three-month time limit expired, at the latest, on 1 October 2020. The claim was lodged on 18 July 2021, over nine months later.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had autism and anxiety and found that he found stressful situations difficult. It also found that the December 2019 matter had been addressed informally through mediation on 14 January 2020, after which the claimant accepted an apology and considered the matter resolved. For the July 2020 incident, the claimant raised a grievance on 4 July 2020, was told on 30 July 2020 that it was not upheld, appealed with trade union support, and was told by letter dated 24 August 2020 that the appeal was unsuccessful.

The claimant attributed the delay to ongoing internal processes and his medical conditions. The tribunal found that the grievance appeal outcome in August 2020 did not explain the delay until July 2021. It accepted that the claimant's conditions made stressful situations difficult, but did not accept that they meant he was unable to raise a tribunal claim earlier or take advice or instruct a trade union or solicitor to do so. It also found that the balance of prejudice favoured the respondent because the cogency of evidence would be adversely affected by the delay. The tribunal therefore refused a just and equitable extension, held it lacked jurisdiction, and dismissed the harassment complaint. No remedy was awarded.