Mr J McAuley v Represented by:15 Mr Milne, Solicitor Lloyds Bank plc — 2020

Mr J McAuley brought disability discrimination allegations against Lloyds Bank plc. The preliminary hearing was confined to time bar under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal noted that the respondent had later conceded that the claimant was disabled. It also recorded that the Scott Schedule contained 15 alleged acts, and that there was a separate allegation about the appeal process which the parties understood to be in time, although the operative ruling addressed sections 1-15 of the Scott Schedule.

The tribunal held that the alleged acts on 18 March 2019 and 15 April 2019 were out of time. It accepted that the claimant and his father were trying to assist with the claim and that they genuinely misunderstood parts of the process, but it found that those first two matters were not pursued at the time despite available avenues for advice. Applying the discretion under section 123, and referring to Bexley Community Centre v Robertson and Rathakrishnan v Pizza Express (Restaurants) Limited, the tribunal declined to extend time for those first two allegations.

For the remaining 13 allegations, said to arise on various dates from 16 May 2019 to 6 June 2019, the tribunal accepted that the delay was caused by a mistaken attempt to send the ET1 to ACAS by email on 13 September 2019, followed by online submission to the Employment Tribunal on 16 September 2019. It found that those allegations were only two days out of time, that the respondent would not suffer substantial prejudice, and that it would be just and equitable to extend time. The tribunal therefore held that it had jurisdiction to hear those 13 allegations at the final hearing and made no merits determination on them in this judgment.