Automated Summary
Key Facts
Miss K Rai was dismissed by The Christie Hospital Foundation Trust on 10 September 2020. She filed claims for automatic unfair dismissal, detriments related to protected disclosures, and race discrimination. The Employment Tribunal found her claims were presented outside the applicable 3-month time limits under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and Equality Act 2010. The judge determined it was reasonably practicable for Rai to have filed within the time limit and concluded it was not just and equitable to extend time, leading to the dismissal of all claims.
Issues
- The tribunal criticized the claimant's claim form and three versions of particulars for creating confusion about the scope of her complaints. It found her attempts to add new claims (e.g., December 2020 discrimination) after the February 2022 hearing were not part of the original claim and contributed to procedural delays, further justifying dismissal of the time-limited complaints.
- The tribunal determined whether the claimant's complaints for automatic unfair dismissal (s103A ERA), detriments due to protected disclosures (s47B ERA), and race discrimination (Equality Act 2010) were presented within the statutory 3-month time limits. The claimant argued the time limits should be extended under s111(2)(b) ERA and s123(b) Equality Act 2010, but the tribunal found it was 'reasonably practicable' for the ERA claims to be presented in time and not 'just and equitable' to extend the Equality Act claims.
- The tribunal examined if the claimant's allegations of harassment, bullying, and exclusion from meetings (from October 2019) constituted detriments under s47B ERA. It concluded these claims were out of time and that the claimant had not demonstrated sufficient reason for delay, rejecting her attempt to assert a new detriment from October 2020 as part of the original claim.
- The tribunal found the claimant's complaints of harassment and victimisation in the claim form were linked to protected disclosures, not race discrimination under the Equality Act. Despite her later assertion of a December 2020 discriminatory act (not included in the claim form), the tribunal concluded the claim was an attempt to circumvent time limits, and thus not just and equitable to extend.
Holdings
- The claim for automatic unfair dismissal under s103A ERA was dismissed as it was presented outside the time limits. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the complaint within the 3-month period following her dismissal on 10 September 2020.
- The claim for detrimental treatment under s47B ERA was dismissed. The tribunal determined the claimant's allegations of detriment following protected disclosures were not included in the claim form and were raised post-hearing to circumvent time limits, which were not met.
- The race discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010 were dismissed. The tribunal ruled it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit, citing the claim was submitted well beyond the 3-month period (10 September 2020 to 5 February 2021) and the claimant's failure to clarify claims in her initial submissions.
Remedies
The claim is dismissed because it was presented outside the time limits applicable to the complaints made in the claim, and it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented her complaints within the required time frames. Additionally, for the race discrimination complaints, it is not just and equitable to extend the time limit under the Equality Act 2010.
Legal Principles
- The tribunal noted the EAT's adoption of section 33 factors (delay length, evidence cogency, co-operation, claimant's promptness, and professional advice) from the Limitation Act 1980 in British Coal v. Keeble (1996) as a non-exhaustive checklist when assessing just and equitable extensions under the Equality Act 2010. These factors were applied to evaluate the claimant's delay in submitting her case.
- The tribunal distinguished between the 'reasonably practicable' test for late ERA claims (sections 111(2)(b), 48(3)(a)) and the 'just and equitable' standard for EQA claims (section 123(b)). It found the claimant's delay in ERA claims was not reasonably practicable, while EQA claims were dismissed due to insufficient justification for extending time despite the claimant's health issues and confusion about ACAS requirements.
- The tribunal applied the time limit provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and Equality Act 2010. For ERA claims, it considered whether presenting complaints within 3 months was 'reasonably practicable' (sections 111(2)(b), 48(3)(a)). For EQA claims, it evaluated whether extending time was 'just and equitable' under section 123(b). The Court of Appeal's guidance in Robertson v Bexley Community Centre (2003) was referenced to emphasize strict enforcement of time limits unless justified.
Precedent Name
- British Coal v. Keeble
- Palmer v Southend on Sea BC
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Hendricks v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner
- Rathakrishnan v Pizza Express (Restaurants) Ltd
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
Cited Statute
- Equality Act 2010
- Employment Rights Act 1996
Judge Name
Leach
Passage Text
- It was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented her complaints for automatic unfair dismissal and detriments on protected disclosure grounds within the 3-month time limit.
- In relation to the claimant's complaints under the Equality Act 2010, it is not just and equitable to extend time under section 123(b) Equality Act 2010.
- The claim was presented outside of the time limits applicable to the complaints made in the claim.