Mr S Spokes v Stork Technical Services (RBG) Limited — 2024

Mr S Spokes brought a disability discrimination claim on 19 April 2024, alleging that delay in arranging his functional capability assessment between 14 April 2023 and 31 July 2023 meant he was denied the opportunity to work his anticipated contractual 154 days in 2023. At this preliminary hearing, the tribunal did not decide the underlying merits of the discrimination complaint. It addressed only time bar, strike out, and deposit order issues.

The tribunal held that it was just and equitable to extend time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. It accepted the claimant's account that he did not know the full consequences of the matter until 31 December 2023, when he could see how many days he had worked in the year; that he sought union advice in January 2024; that he was told to raise a grievance first; and that he delayed ACAS early conciliation because of urgent family matters. The tribunal also found that the claimant acted promptly after receiving the ACAS certificate and that the prejudice to him if barred would be greater than any prejudice to the respondent.

The respondent's application to strike out the claim was dismissed. The tribunal found there was a material factual dispute about why the functional capability assessment had been delayed and whether that delay was causally related to something arising in consequence of the claimant's asserted disability, or was only the context in which the issue arose. It noted that the respondent had not yet provided its reason for the delay and that there was also a dispute about the claimant's willingness and availability to work while awaiting the assessment.

For the same reasons, the respondent's application for a deposit order was dismissed. The tribunal relied on the authorities it cited on strike out and deposit orders, including British Coal Corporation v Keeble, Ezias, Balls, Anyanwu, Cox, Jansen Van Rensburg, Sharma, Wright v Wolverhampton City Council, Rathakrishnan, and Charlesworth. The case was allowed to proceed, and a further preliminary hearing was to be fixed to determine the claimant's disability status.