Mr O Akanni v [Supported by Mr D Adetoro] Precious Care Services Ltd — 2026

The judgment followed a preliminary hearing on jurisdiction and amendment. The claimant had originally brought the claim against My Homecare Glasgow. The tribunal allowed the amendment to substitute Precious Care Services Ltd as respondent, finding that the correct employer had understood it was the intended respondent and had lodged an ET3, so there was no prejudice in allowing the substitution.

The claimant's employment ended on 30 June 2025, early conciliation began on 16 October 2025, the certificate was issued on 17 October 2025, and the ET1 was lodged on 31 October 2025. The tribunal found that the whistleblowing detriment/dismissal, breach of contract/wrongful dismissal, and unlawful deduction from wages claims were 32 days late. Applying the not reasonably practicable test, the tribunal accepted the claimant was candid and had difficult personal circumstances, but found that he knew of the time limit, had received advice from ACAS and a solicitor about time limits, and could reasonably feasibly have lodged a claim in time even if the wording was imperfect. Those claims were dismissed as time barred.

For the Equality Act claims, the tribunal applied the wider just and equitable discretion. It considered the 32-day delay, the claimant's reasons for delay, his immigration uncertainty and family circumstances, the limited likely effect on the cogency of evidence, his attempts to obtain advice, and the prejudice to each party. The tribunal did not determine the merits of the Equality Act claims and noted that the only presently valid claim might be victimisation, with a question over the way the claimant had pleaded immigration status discrimination.

The tribunal concluded that, cumulatively, the short delay and limited prejudice to the respondent, balanced against the prejudice to the claimant if no claim could proceed, made it just and equitable to extend time for the Equality Act claims. Those claims were therefore allowed to continue to a final hearing, while the whistleblowing, breach of contract/wrongful dismissal, and unlawful deduction from wages claims were dismissed. No monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment.