E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000112/2025 (V)5 Held on April 2025 Employment Judge J M Hendry Mr J Mallon v Artfarm Limited — 2025

At an open preliminary hearing on 25 April 2025, the tribunal considered the respondent’s application that the claims should be struck out for want of jurisdiction because they had been lodged out of time. The claimant had been dismissed on 17 May 2024 from his role as a linen porter. He contacted ACAS for early conciliation on 3 January 2025, the certificate was issued on 15 January 2025, and the ET proceedings were completed on the same date. The tribunal also noted that, at an earlier hearing, he had been told he did not have sufficient qualifying service for ordinary unfair dismissal, so the case proceeded on the section 103A claim together with sex and disability discrimination claims.

On the section 103A dismissal claim, the tribunal applied the reasonably practicable test under section 111 ERA 1996. It accepted that the claimant had tried to obtain advice and representation from a number of organisations, and that he had experienced stress and anxiety around work and dismissal. However, it found that he knew employee rights could be pursued in an employment tribunal, had a strong sense of grievance, and could have made earlier enquiries about time limits and the tribunal process. The tribunal did not accept that the claimant had shown it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, and the claim was dismissed.

On the sex and disability discrimination claims, the tribunal applied section 123 Equality Act 2010 and the just and equitable test. It found that the claims were weakly articulated, that the alleged sex discrimination arose from an impromptu meeting on 23 February 2024, and that the disability point arose from a March 2024 request for redeployment, both before dismissal. The tribunal held that there was no impediment preventing the claims from being made in time, that the respondent had not contributed to the delay, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. All claims were dismissed and no monetary award was made.