Claimant v IOTL Ltd — 2024

This was a preliminary hearing on jurisdiction. The claimant presented claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination on 15 March 2024. The tribunal noted that she had not obtained the ACAS certificate before lodging the claim, and that the certificate was later provided on 25 March 2024. The relevant date for the employment termination was disputed, with the claimant saying 13 September 2023 and the respondent saying 24 August 2023.

For the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal used 13 September 2023 as the latest possible termination date. On that basis, the claim had to be lodged by 12 December 2023, but it was presented almost three months late. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had been taking an increased dose of Fluoxetine and had family responsibilities, but it also found that she continued working apart from a period of sickness absence, started a new taxi-driving job around 14 September 2023, and did not appear to have taken steps to investigate a tribunal claim until months later. It also found there was a real risk of prejudice to the respondent because the events were over a year old. The tribunal therefore held it was reasonably practicable to present the unfair dismissal claim in time and had no jurisdiction to hear it under s.111 ERA 1996.

For the disability discrimination claim, the tribunal applied the wider just and equitable test under s.123 Equality Act 2010 and referred to the approach in Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link and Concentrix GVC v Intelligent Contact Ltd v Obi. It found that the claimant had raised a grievance in June 2023 alleging bullying and discrimination, and that the grievance was rejected in a letter of 24 July 2023, so she was aware of the underlying issues well before the limitation period expired. The tribunal noted that health issues did not prevent her working and that she was aware of ACAS, but she had not investigated her tribunal rights before February 2024. Balancing the length and reason for delay against prejudice to the respondent, the tribunal concluded it was not just and equitable to extend time and therefore had no jurisdiction to determine the discrimination claim.