Case 8000238/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Cherrie v Partner Retail Services Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 8000238/2023
- Decision date
- 17 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sangster
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Cherrie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on limitation and jurisdiction. The claimant brought complaints of disability discrimination and harassment arising between 5 August 2022 and the termination of his employment on 12 February 2023. The tribunal held that, even if the complaint was treated as a continuing act, the last act was 12 February 2023 and the primary three-month time limit expired on 11 May 2023. The claim form was presented on 18 May 2023, seven days late.
The tribunal then considered whether it was just and equitable to extend time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. It accepted that the claimant had bipolar depression and that his mental health declined significantly from mid-2022, including suicidal ideation, referral to the Intensive Home Treatment Team, and increased medication in November and December 2022. It also accepted that he had been unaware of the tribunal time limits, that discussing matters with Acas was difficult for him, and that his ignorance of the time limit was reasonable in the circumstances.
In balancing prejudice, the tribunal accepted that the respondent would be prejudiced by having to defend a claim with earliest complaints dating back to August 2022, but noted that the respondent had been on notice from 30 November 2022 when the claimant raised a grievance and said he had started early conciliation. It found that there was no suggestion that witnesses were unavailable and that the cogency of the evidence was unlikely to be materially affected by the short delay. The tribunal concluded that the balance of prejudice favoured the claimant and therefore had jurisdiction to hear the disability discrimination and harassment complaints.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary jurisdiction ruling only. The tribunal held that it was just and equitable to extend time under s.123 EqA 2010 so that the disability discrimination complaints could be heard; the substantive discrimination allegations were not determined. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Preliminary jurisdiction ruling only. The tribunal held that it was just and equitable to extend time under s.123 EqA 2010 so that the harassment complaint could be heard; the substantive harassment allegation was not determined. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- London Borough of Southwark v Afolabi
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.