Mr Keiran Donnelly v Highland Spring Limited — 2026

This was a preliminary hearing on whether the claimant’s unfair dismissal and disability discrimination complaints were in time. The agreed dismissal date was 2 June 2025. The claimant submitted an ACAS early conciliation notification on 25 August 2025, received the certificate on 1 September 2025, and lodged the ET1 on 16 October 2025. The tribunal calculated that the unfair dismissal time limit expired on 1 October 2025, so the claim was 15 days late.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal applied the section 111 ERA 1996 test of whether it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. It accepted that the claimant had long-term mental health problems and was taking sertraline, but did not accept that those difficulties prevented him from lodging a claim. The tribunal relied on the claimant’s ability during the limitation period to look for work, draft a detailed appeal with assistance from his brother, contact ACAS repeatedly, research his position, obtain an early conciliation certificate, and set up a consultancy business. It also found that his ignorance of the time limit was not reasonable, and that waiting for the internal appeal did not make it not reasonably practicable to present the claim on time. The tribunal therefore held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint.

On the disability discrimination complaint, the tribunal applied the section 123 Equality Act 2010 just and equitable test. It treated the delay as 15 days, noted that the claimant knew the facts giving rise to the complaint from the date of dismissal, and gave weight to the absence of a good explanation for the delay. It also considered the prejudice to each side, including the claimant’s loss of the ability to pursue the claim if time were not extended and the respondent’s need to defend a time-barred claim. Balancing those factors, and noting there was at least a basis for disability status from the evidence of long-term mental health issues and medication, the tribunal extended time and allowed the discrimination claim to proceed to a further preliminary hearing.