Mr L Brookes First v Second Respondent: Third Respondent: Fourth Respondent: Executive Telecommunications (UK) Limited (in creditors voluntary liquidation) Secretary of State for Business and Trade Mr S Hoskisson Mr J Brown — 2026

Mr Brookes was dismissed without notice by Executive Telecommunications (UK) Limited on 1 July 2024, with gross misconduct given as the reason. ACAS early conciliation began on 30 September 2024 and concluded on 30 October 2024. The Tribunal found that the deadline for the unfair dismissal and notice pay complaints was 30 November 2024 and that the holiday pay and wages complaints were also out of time even if 31 July 2024 were used as the date of the alleged deduction.

The Tribunal found that it had been reasonably practicable for Mr Brookes to present the unfair dismissal, notice pay, holiday pay and wages complaints in time. He had obtained legal assistance shortly after dismissal, knew that employment claims were subject to time limits, and was actively corresponding with his solicitors and others during the relevant period. Although the Tribunal accepted that he experienced mental health problems and family difficulties, it found that neither caused the delay. The Tribunal consequently dismissed those complaints against the First Respondent for lack of jurisdiction.

The harassment related to disability and discrimination arising from disability complaints against the First, Third and Fourth Respondents were also out of time. Applying the just and equitable test separately to the respondents, the Tribunal declined to extend time. It considered the absence of a satisfactory explanation, Mr Brookes's prior access to advice and knowledge of time limits, the apparent difficulties with the pleaded merits, and, for the Third and Fourth Respondents, the delay in joining them, forensic prejudice arising from the liquidation and loss of ready access to documents, and the conduct of the proceedings. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the disability discrimination complaints without determining their substantive merits.

The Tribunal additionally held that, if it had possessed jurisdiction over the disability complaints against Mr Hoskisson and Mr Brown, it would have struck them out under Rules 38(1)(a) and 38(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. It found that repeated correspondence, applications and failures to follow judicial directions had prejudiced those respondents, that the conduct would continue, and that a fair hearing was no longer possible. It considered costs and restrictions on responding to correspondence but concluded that those alternatives would not remedy the prejudice. The application to join Mr Steve Kelly as a Fifth Respondent was refused.

The statutory redundancy payment claim against the First Respondent was presented within the six-month limit under s.164 Employment Rights Act 1996 and will proceed to a full hearing. The Tribunal did not determine the time position for the claim involving the Secretary of State under s.188 because the relevant refusal and its communication date were not before it. Although the Tribunal considered that the redundancy claim appeared weak and met the threshold of having little reasonable prospect of success, it exercised its discretion not to make a deposit order. No compensation or other monetary remedy was awarded in this preliminary judgment.