Claimant v HM Revenue & Customs
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim added by amendment. Claimant alleges exclusion from applying for promoted HOE post because she was a contractual homeworker, a status given due to her disabilities. Preliminary hearing addressed time bar and amendment only; merits not yet determined.
Claimant alleges discrimination arising from disability based on exclusion from recruitment process for promoted post due to homeworker status. Amendment allowed to expand factual basis. Merits to be determined at final hearing.
Claim added by amendment. Claimant alleges respondent's policy excluding homeworkers from applying for promotion amounts to indirect discrimination. Merits not yet determined.
Claimant alleges respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments to recruitment policy to allow her, as a disabled homeworker, to apply for promoted HOE post despite doing HEO-level work. Merits to be determined at final hearing.
Claimant sought to add victimisation claims under s.27 relating to grievance handling. Tribunal refused amendment as these were wholly new matters not referenced in ET1 or grievance, would require additional investigation and witnesses, and prejudice respondent.
Facts
Claimant, a long-serving HMRC employee working part-time from home due to disabilities, specialised in Debt Arrangement Schemes work at HEO level. In February 2024 a HEO post was advertised for the Insolvency team. In June 2024 she learned the successful candidate would take over her DAS work and she was excluded from applying because of her homeworker status. She raised a grievance in September 2024 which was rejected after a lengthy process concluding June 2025. Her trade union representative incorrectly advised time limits did not apply to policy challenges and delayed submitting her case for legal assistance. During this period she cared for her ill mother and suffered from stress-related health issues.
Decision
Tribunal granted just and equitable extension of time for disability discrimination claims filed 3 months late, finding claimant genuinely ignorant of time limits, misled by trade union advice, occupied with lengthy grievance process, and affected by ill health and caring responsibilities. Amendment allowed to add claims under ss.13, 15, 19 and 20 Equality Act but victimisation claims under s.27 refused as wholly new allegations requiring additional investigation. Restricted reporting order granted for medical history.
Practical note
Tribunals may extend time on just and equitable grounds where unrepresented claimants receive incorrect trade union advice about time limits, particularly when combined with ill health, personal difficulties, and protracted internal grievance processes, though wholly new claims causing significant prejudice may still be refused.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8000737/2025
- Decision date
- 27 November 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- central government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Debt Arrangement Schemes specialist
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No