R Grayson v University of Edinburgh — 2026

The tribunal dismissed R Grayson’s claims against the University of Edinburgh for lack of jurisdiction because they were presented out of time. It found that her employment as a student ambassador ended on 11 July 2025, when a student disciplinary decision imposed immediate permanent exclusion from the University. Her contract provided that employment would end when she ceased to be a matriculated student, if earlier than 30 August 2026. The tribunal rejected her contention that employment continued until July 2026. It found that a subsequently issued staff card was an administrative error, and she produced no provision showing that the disciplinary sanction was suspended pending appeal.

Grayson contacted ACAS on 11 October 2025, received an early conciliation certificate on 24 November and lodged her claim on 8 December. The tribunal rejected her evidence that she lacked awareness of tribunal time limits and found that any ignorance was not reasonable, taking account of her legal studies and evidence about seeking advice. It held that presenting the wrongful dismissal, unpaid wages, holiday pay and protected-disclosure detriment claims within three months was reasonably practicable. Alternatively, the claims were not presented within a reasonable further period: she gave no explanation for the delay after contacting ACAS, stating that she was filing a claim, and receiving the certificate.

The wrongful dismissal claim concerned notice pay. The holiday-pay and back-pay claims were unquantified, and their basis was unclear. The tribunal accepted the University’s record that Grayson had worked 16.25 hours in total and rejected her evidence that she had worked additional shifts. Her contract provided for holiday pay alongside payment for hours worked. Even using termination of employment as the latest possible starting point, the tribunal found both pay claims late. The alleged protected disclosures and resulting detriments remained unspecified despite an order for particulars and a revised claim form.

The disability discrimination claim concerned a failure to make reasonable adjustments. Disability status remained disputed and was not decided. Grayson had not worked or requested work after February 2024 and had not responded to a September 2024 invitation to refresher training. She had not specified the disadvantage caused by any disability or provided evidence that she had told the University about disabilities affecting her duties. Even assessing time from termination, the tribunal declined a just and equitable extension. It considered the reasons for delay, the continuing lack of particulars, the difficulty of assessing prejudice to the University and the difficulty of finding that the claim had prospects of success.

The proposed amendment to add race discrimination and harassment claims was not determined as a separate application. The judge stated that, as drafted, it would have been refused because it lacked particulars and was out of time. Those proposed claims are therefore not recorded here as adjudicated claims. The judgment recorded no monetary award.