Mr A Manzoor v KPMG Holding LLP — 2024

The preliminary hearing concerned time limits only. It was not in dispute that Mr Manzoor's ET1 brought claims of unfair dismissal and unlawful discrimination on the grounds of race and religion or belief, and that the claims were submitted outside the normal statutory time limits with no extension arising from ACAS early conciliation. The acts relied on for the discrimination complaints were the dismissal and alleged lack of procedure before dismissal. KPMG disputed that Mr Manzoor was its employee, but the tribunal did not need to determine that issue or the effective date of termination, proceeding on the basis that it was either 13 October 2023 or 20 October 2023.

For the unfair dismissal complaint, the tribunal found that the relevant three-month period expired on either 12 January 2024 or 19 January 2024, and that the ET1 was presented on 12 June 2024, either 152 or 145 days out of time. The claimant relied on his health, the emotional effect of treatment, job loss, and financial pressures. The tribunal accepted that those matters caused stress and affected his ability to focus, but did not accept that he lacked the capacity to submit the claim in time. It noted that he was not certified unfit for work, did not attend his GP about mental health issues during the relevant period, was undertaking internet searches, was contacting agencies, and was able to engage with new work after the primary limitation period.

Applying section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for the unfair dismissal claim to have been presented within the relevant three-month period and that it was not presented within a reasonable period thereafter. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed as time barred.

For the Equality Act complaints, the tribunal considered whether it was just and equitable to extend time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. It found that the GP letter recorded what the claimant had told the GP and confirmed the treatment, but did not diagnose a mental health condition, identify a debilitating medical condition, or give the GP's own evidence-based opinion that the claimant could not submit a claim. The tribunal considered the length of and reason for the delay, the balance of prejudice, the absence of asserted forensic prejudice to KPMG, and the claimant's evidence about why the claims were not brought sooner. It found insufficient evidential basis to support a just and equitable extension, including for the period after the primary time limit expired, and dismissed the race and religion or belief discrimination claims as time barred. No remedy was awarded.