Claimant v HSBC Group Management Services Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
This was a preliminary hearing on time limits and amendment applications only. The substantive claims of pregnancy and maternity discrimination contrary to ss.18(2), 18(4) and 41 EqA 2010 have not yet been determined on their merits.
Substantive claims relating to maternity leave discrimination have not yet been determined. The tribunal ruled only that the claims were not to be struck out for being out of time and that claimant had reasonable prospect of showing extension of time was just and equitable.
Facts
Claimant, a Chartered Occupational Psychologist, worked as contractor for R1 via umbrella company R3 from December 2021. She announced pregnancy in October 2023 whilst applying for permanent role. After series of rejections and non-extensions, her engagement ended 29 March 2024, shortly after she began maternity leave on 7 February 2024 and gave birth on 9 February 2024. She did not present ET1 until 10 September 2024, nearly 2½ months outside primary time limit. She applied to amend claim in November 2025 to add allegations concerning later role in Dubai.
Decision
Tribunal refused R1's applications to strike out claims or make deposit orders on time limit grounds, finding claimant had reasonable prospect of showing just and equitable extension based on combination of factors: late discovery of material facts, complications in pregnancy and post-birth recovery, caring for sick child, mental health difficulties, and desire not to prejudice work prospects. Tribunal granted amendment to add one allegation (rejection for Dubai role) but refused another (negative reference), primarily due to forensic prejudice and speculative nature of latter claim.
Practical note
Combination of pregnancy complications, post-birth caring responsibilities, mental health difficulties, and late discovery of facts may together provide basis for just and equitable extension even where each factor alone might be insufficient, particularly where delay has not caused severe evidential prejudice.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6011292/2024
- Decision date
- 11 December 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Assessment SME
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister