ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000081/2023 Preliminary Hearing by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) at Edinburgh on January 2024 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Heather Hiram v Obaseki Solicitors — 2024

The Tribunal heard a preliminary issue on jurisdiction at a CVP hearing on 24 January 2024. The claimant said she had been dismissed by email on 27 May 2022, with her employment ending on 27 August 2022, and that she notified ACAS on 18 July 2022 and received an Early Conciliation Certificate on 28 August 2022. Her ET1, presented on 27 February 2023, included a disability discrimination complaint and also referred to unfair dismissal and loss of redundancy pay, but the Tribunal ultimately determined only the disability discrimination claim at this hearing.

Applying section 123 Equality Act 2010, the Tribunal found that the discrimination claim should have been presented by 26 November 2022. It held that the ACAS early conciliation period did not extend the limitation period in this case because the time limit was not due to expire within the relevant statutory window. The claim was therefore about three months late, and the Tribunal went on to consider whether it would be just and equitable to extend time.

The Tribunal applied the guidance in British Coal Corporation v Keeble and others and Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link. It accepted that the claimant had experienced significant trauma and illness, including fibromyalgia, PTSD and anxiety, but found her evidence about being unable to present the claim throughout the limitation period was not fully reliable. It relied on evidence that she had still been able to take trips, go horse-riding and dog-walking, assist another person with tribunal proceedings, and resume her Masters studies before February 2023. It also noted that she was legally qualified and had practised as a solicitor, so she was capable of researching time limits. On balance, the Tribunal held that it was not just and equitable to extend time and dismissed the disability discrimination claim for want of jurisdiction. It further noted that no unfair dismissal claim arose because the claimant had not been employed for two years continuously, and it directed her to confirm whether she wished to pursue any other claims by 20 March 2024.