Claimant v Viewpoint Housing Association Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for claimant to have submitted ET1 on time. Claimant had advice from CAB and Acas in late September 2024 to raise proceedings urgently, but did not file until 17 October 2024. Claimant's evidence of ill health preventing filing was unsupported by medical evidence. Claim dismissed as tribunal lacked jurisdiction under s.111 ERA 1996.
Tribunal declined to extend time under just and equitable test (s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010). Although delay of 17 days was relatively short and no prejudice to respondent shown, claimant provided no cogent reason for delay. Claimant had advice from CAB and Acas by late September 2024 but did not file until 17 October 2024, with no medical evidence supporting claimed ill health. Tribunal applied Robertson v Bexley: extension of time is exception not the rule.
Facts
Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct on 21 May 2024 after 9 years' service as a care assistant. She was represented at the disciplinary hearing by Unison official Greig Kelbie, who did not advise her of tribunal rights. She contacted Acas on 18 July 2024 and received an EC certificate on 29 August 2024. In late September 2024 she received advice from CAB and Acas to submit a claim urgently due to imminent time limit expiry. Her ET1 was submitted on 17 October 2024, 17 days out of time. The last timely filing date was 1 October 2024.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed both claims as time-barred. For unfair dismissal, it found it was reasonably practicable to submit on time, noting claimant had advice from CAB and Acas by late September but failed to file until 17 October without medical evidence of incapacity. For race discrimination, the tribunal declined to extend time on just and equitable grounds, finding no cogent explanation for the 17-day delay despite timely advice, applying the principle that extension of time is the exception not the rule.
Practical note
Lack of advice from a trade union representative at the time of dismissal does not excuse late filing where claimant subsequently receives clear advice on time limits from Acas or CAB but still fails to act promptly without medical evidence of incapacity.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 4106855/2024
- Decision date
- 22 December 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- charity
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- care assistant
- Service
- 9 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No