Claimant v Third Financial Software Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Claims against first, second and third respondents (except specified exceptions) were presented out of time and tribunal found it not just and equitable to extend time. Claims against fourth and fifth respondents were all out of time. Even if jurisdiction existed, all claims would have failed.
Claims against first, second and third respondents (except specified exceptions) were presented out of time and tribunal found it not just and equitable to extend time. Claims against fourth and fifth respondents were all out of time. Even if jurisdiction existed, all claims would have failed.
Sexual harassment claims against all respondents were either struck out for being out of time or failed on merits. Tribunal indicated that even if it had jurisdiction, all such claims would have failed.
Most direct sex discrimination claims were struck out for being out of time. The remaining in-time claims at paragraphs 18(b), (d) and (e) against first respondent and 18(d) and (e) against second and third respondents all failed on their merits.
Most victimisation claims were struck out for being out of time. The remaining in-time claims at paragraphs 24(c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i) against first respondent and 24(e), (f), (g), (h) and (i) against second and third respondents all failed on their merits.
Facts
The claimant brought multiple claims of harassment related to race and sex, sexual harassment, direct sex discrimination and victimisation against five respondents including two companies and three individuals. The case proceeded to a full merits hearing over seven days. The majority of claims were found to have been presented outside the applicable time limits.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the vast majority of claims for lack of jurisdiction, finding they were presented out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time. The small number of in-time claims that remained all failed on their merits. The claimant was wholly unsuccessful.
Practical note
Claims must be brought within strict time limits, and tribunals will not extend time under the just and equitable discretion without good reason; even where jurisdiction is doubtful, tribunals may still determine claims on their merits as an alternative basis for dismissal.
Legal authorities cited
Case details
- Case number
- 6004336/2024
- Decision date
- 21 November 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 7
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- technology
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister