Mr Daniel Sathiaraj v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2025

The Claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing. After enquiries by the Tribunal clerk and no response from the Claimant, the Tribunal proceeded in his absence rather than adjourning or dismissing for non-attendance alone.

The Tribunal found that the claim was presented after the applicable primary time limits. For the protected disclosure detriment complaint, the Tribunal found no evidence or explanation showing that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, or that the later presentation was within a reasonable further period.

For the disability and race discrimination complaints, the Tribunal considered the length of delay, the absence of an explanation, the possible impact on witness recollection, and the Claimant's apparent awareness of limitation after ACAS conciliation. It concluded that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaints.