Ms S Cherry v Glasgow City Council — 2026

This was a preliminary hearing on jurisdiction and time limits in two combined claims brought by Ms S Cherry against Glasgow City Council. The claimant's employment ended on 17 March 2025. She began Early Conciliation on 30 May 2025, ACAS issued a certificate on 5 June 2025, and the two claim forms were presented on 17 July 2025 and 21 July 2025. The Tribunal found that the Employment Rights Act 1996 claims, including unfair dismissal, section 47B detriment and unauthorised deductions from wages, were not presented within the applicable time limits.

For the Employment Rights Act claims, the Tribunal found that the claimant had not proved any act or omission by the respondent after 17 March 2025, and had not established a continuing act or series of acts. It accepted that the claimant had anxiety and depression, that her dismissal and eviction had worsened her mental health, that she had no legal advice, and that she attempted to start an online claim around 22 June 2025. However, it also found that she knew in general terms about time limits, had previous tribunal experience, engaged in Early Conciliation, and had not adequately explained why the claims were not presented by 5 July 2025. It therefore held that it had not been shown that presentation in time was not reasonably practicable, and dismissed the Employment Rights Act claims for want of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal rejected the claimant's argument that ongoing victimisation meant time did not run. It found that the emails and housing-related matters relied on by the claimant were not properly before the Tribunal, were described only in general terms, and did not provide reliable evidence of Equality Act victimisation or of conduct extending over a period. The Tribunal therefore treated 17 March 2025 as the relevant date for calculating the Equality Act time limit and found that those claims were also presented late.

For the Equality Act 2010 discrimination and victimisation complaints, the Tribunal held that it was just and equitable to extend time. The delay was 12 and 16 days, and no forensic prejudice from that short delay was suggested. The Tribunal took account of the claimant's mental health, eviction, lack of legal advice, and incomplete attempt to present a claim, while also recognising some prejudice to the respondent from having to defend claims that were otherwise out of time and might overlap with an earlier claim. It concluded that any overlap or res judicata issue could be addressed by later case management or strike-out applications, and that a fair trial could take place. No remedy was awarded because the decision concerned jurisdiction only.