Claimant v Extra Personnel Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal refused the claimant's application to extend the time limit for presenting the claim. The claim was filed approximately 3 years out of time. The tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time, considering: the respondent would suffer prejudice as the alleged discriminator no longer worked there and memories had faded; the cogency of evidence was affected; and the claimant had received extensive advice from multiple sources including a solicitor, making continued ignorance of the law unreasonable. The claim was dismissed.
The tribunal refused the claimant's application to extend the time limit for presenting the claim on the same grounds as the race discrimination claim. The alleged conduct occurred between March and April 2021 but was not raised until February 2024. The claim was dismissed as the tribunal determined it was not just and equitable to extend time, citing prejudice to the respondent, impact on evidence quality, and the claimant's unreasonable lack of knowledge after seeking multiple sources of legal advice.
Facts
The claimant, a security officer employed by an employment agency from April 2019 to December 2024, alleged race discrimination and harassment relating to conduct between March and April 2021. He filed a claim in February 2024, approximately 3 years out of time, after two previous unsuccessful attempts to file claims (one rejected for lack of jurisdiction, one for discrepancies between claim form and ACAS certificate). Neither previous claim had raised race discrimination. The claimant had sought extensive advice from multiple sources including a solicitor, lay representative, ACAS, and others.
Decision
The tribunal refused the claimant's application to extend the time limit for presenting the claim on just and equitable grounds. The tribunal found the respondent would suffer prejudice as the alleged discriminator no longer worked there and memories had faded, the cogency of evidence was affected by delay, and the claimant's continued ignorance of the law was unreasonable given the extensive advice he had received. The claims were dismissed. A subsequent reconsideration application was also refused.
Practical note
A 3-year delay in bringing discrimination claims will not be excused even with lay representation where the claimant has sought extensive legal advice, the delay prejudices the respondent's ability to defend, and contemporaneous evidence contradicts the discrimination allegations.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1303265/2024
- Decision date
- 1 December 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
Employment details
- Role
- security officer
- Service
- 6 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep