Mr A Heygate-Browne v Date: Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig 9 March 2026 — 2026

This reserved preliminary judgment determined time-limit issues concerning complaints related to Mr Heygate-Browne's dyslexia. The May 2024 complaints concerned an external trainer's alleged reference to dyslexia and similar neurodiverse conditions as “diseased” on 14 May and Mr Dixon's alleged comment on 21 May that people with dyslexia should be spoken to slowly and in short sentences. Those events were pleaded as direct disability discrimination or harassment related to disability. The October 2024 complaint alleged a failure to make reasonable adjustments in the application process for a permanent role.

The Tribunal found that every complaint had been presented outside the primary time limit under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. It rejected the argument that either May incident was itself continuing conduct: the substance of each complaint was what was said or displayed on the particular date, rather than its subsequent effects. It also found that the May and October matters did not collectively constitute conduct extending over a period. They concerned different alleged acts and legal complaints, were separated by four to five months, and the limited involvement of Mr Dixon in both periods was insufficient to link them.

The Tribunal declined to extend time for the direct disability discrimination and harassment complaints about 14 and 21 May 2024. Acas early conciliation began approximately ten months after those events and seven months after the primary limitation period had expired. The Tribunal found that the Claimant initially chose not to pursue a formal complaint, believed his feedback had been taken on board, and only included the May events in a grievance after the October recruitment matter. Although he then relied on Wells Cathedral School Ltd v Souter while completing the grievance process, that authority did not guarantee an extension. The Tribunal also considered the interest in finality and some potential prejudice from witnesses having to recall disputed matters such as tone and facial expression after a substantial interval. It did not determine the merits of the May complaints because material factual disputes remained and the evidence before it was insufficient for a safe assessment.

The Tribunal reached a different, expressly borderline conclusion concerning the 11 October 2024 reasonable-adjustments complaint. The Claimant had raised a grievance within days and genuinely pursued the grievance and appeal in an attempt to resolve the recruitment issue. The length of that process was largely outside his control. Although he knowingly allowed the primary period to expire and placed excessive reliance on Wells as a litigant in person without legal advice, the delay was not considered egregious or unexplained. The Respondent identified no particular forensic prejudice, and the surviving complaint was narrow. The Tribunal therefore held that it was just and equitable to extend time.