Mr S Rafiq v ICARE Group Ltd — 2025

This was a preliminary hearing on whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s Equality Act 2010 claims. A previous preliminary hearing before Judge Doherty on 11 and 12 March 2025 had already found that the claims were presented out of time. The present hearing concerned the claimant’s disability discrimination claims only; separate Employment Rights Act 1996 and Working Time Regulations 1998 claims had already been found outside jurisdiction because it was reasonably practicable to bring them within the primary time limit.

The tribunal identified the relevant disability claims as indirect disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment related to disability. It accepted that the last possible discriminatory act was 29 February 2024, when the claimant left employment. The claimant contacted ACAS for early conciliation on 7 June 2024, received his certificate on 18 July 2024, and presented his ET1 on 12 August 2024. The judge applied the section 123 Equality Act 2010 just and equitable test, referring to Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link, Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan, and Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust.

In deciding whether to extend time, the tribunal found the delay was relatively lengthy and the reasons advanced did not justify it. The claimant said his mental state prevented him from acting sooner, and noted that he had been taking Nitrazepam for anxiety until his GP stopped it at the end of March 2024. However, the judge found there was no evidence that he could not have completed the claim form and attached his resignation letter during June or July 2024, particularly as he had been doing some work and was involved in setting up companies after resigning. The judge also noted concerns about the reliability of parts of the claimant’s evidence from the earlier hearing.

The tribunal considered prejudice to the respondent. The claimant’s allegations went back to 2022, the pleaded case lacked sufficient detail for the matter to proceed without further particulars, and the individuals accused would be required to recall events that were already significantly dated. The judge concluded that the balance of prejudice favoured the respondent, declined to extend time, and dismissed the Equality Act 2010 claims.