Mr M Chowdhury v London Borough of Newham and Others (England and Wales : Breach of Contract) -[2022] UKET 3205728/2021- (10 February 2022)

Key Facts

Issues

• The Claimant's unfair dismissal claims against the First, Second, and Third Respondents were dismissed because he lacked the required two years of continuous employment at each organization under s108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996. This rule applied to all three employers, as confirmed by the Claimant's acceptance at the hearing.
• The Claimant contacted ACAS for the Second Respondent on 24 August 2021, just under a month before his 30 August 2021 deadline for final salary and holiday pay claims. This contact granted a one-month extension, allowing these claims to proceed. However, his discrimination claim against the Second Respondent missed the ACAS extension deadline.
• The Tribunal determined the Claimant's claim form against the First and Third Respondents only included unfair dismissal claims. While he later referenced potential discrimination claims in an email, these were not substantiated in the original claim form, and the Tribunal could not consider them as presented.
• The Tribunal considered whether to extend the time limit for the Claimant's discrimination claim (religion/belief) against the Second Respondent. The Claimant argued his knee fracture and mental health issues delayed the claim, but the Tribunal found he had legal advice early and no medical evidence supported his assertions. The delay would prejudice the Respondent more than the Claimant.

Holdings

• The Claimant's claim for breach of contract was dismissed, but his claims for unlawful deduction of wages and accrued holiday pay against the Second Respondent proceeded. These claims were within the time limits (s23(2) Employment Rights Act 1996 and Regulation 30(2)(a) Working Time Regulations 1998) and benefited from an ACAS extension of time, even though they were ultimately found to lack merit.
• The Tribunal dismissed the Claimant's unfair dismissal claims against the First Respondent (London Borough of Newham) and Third Respondent (London Borough of Hillingdon) because the Claimant did not have the required two years of continuous employment under s108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 to bring such claims. The claims were deemed out of time and lacked jurisdiction as ordinary unfair dismissal cases.
• The Claimant's discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010 (religion and belief) against the Second Respondent (Riverside Group Limited) were dismissed for being presented outside the three-month time limit. The Tribunal found no justifiable grounds for extending time, as the Claimant had legal advice and awareness of time limits but failed to act promptly, with no substantiated medical evidence supporting his claimed health issues.

Remedies

• The Claimant's claims for unlawful deduction of wages and accrued holiday pay against the Second Respondent were presented within the required time limits (under s23(2) Employment Rights Act 1996 and Regulation 30(2)(a) Working Time Regulations 1998) and therefore proceed for determination.
• The Tribunal dismissed the Claimant's religion/belief discrimination claim against the Second Respondent as it was presented outside the three-month time limit under s123(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010, and no extension was granted.
• The Claimant's claim for unfair dismissal against the Second Respondent was dismissed because he did not meet the two-year service requirement under s108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
• The Claimant's claim for unfair dismissal against the First Respondent was dismissed because he did not have the required two years of continuous employment under s108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to bring such a claim.
• The Tribunal dismissed the Claimant's claim for unfair (constructive) dismissal against the Third Respondent as he lacked the necessary two years of service to qualify for the claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
• The Claimant's claim for breach of contract was dismissed. The Tribunal clarified that his claims regarding final salary and holiday pay were instead treated as unlawful deduction of wages and working time claims.

Legal Principles

• Time limits for employment tribunal claims (e.g., three months for discrimination under the Equality Act 2010). Extensions are granted only if it is 'just and equitable,' considering reasons for delay, evidence impact, and party conduct.
• The claimant must establish the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The Tribunal must weigh all circumstances to reach a just conclusion, considering factors like delay, evidence cogency, and relative prejudice to parties.

Precedent Name

• Littlewoods Organisation v Traynor
• Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
• British Coal v Keeble
• Hendricks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
• Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
• Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v Caston
• Pathan v South London Islamic Centre

Cited Statute

• Working Time Regulations 1998
• Employment Rights Act 1996
• Equality Act 2010
• Limitation Act 1980

Judge Name

Passage Text

• The Tribunal does not extend time under s123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 and accordingly the discrimination claim is dismissed.
• The Claimant's claim for unfair dismissal against the Second Respondent is dismissed because the Claimant did not have the required two years continuous employment under s108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 to bring such a claim.
• The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim because it is an unfair dismissal claim only.