Cases8001218/2025

Claimant v Circles Network

12 November 2025Before Employment Judge J M HendryScotlandremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

Claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as it was not lodged timeously. Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have lodged in time. Despite union representative's alleged misleading advice about 'pausing' proceedings, claimant did not check position and delayed unreasonably, including 6 weeks after contacting ACAS.

Direct Discrimination(sex)struck out

Claim dismissed as time-barred. Tribunal not satisfied it was just and equitable to extend time. Claims were vague and undeveloped, relating to incidents at least a year old. Claimant aware of sexual harassment issues before dismissal but chose not to pursue them until after dismissal. Delays occurred before personal difficulties arose.

Harassment(sex)struck out

Claim dismissed as time-barred. Tribunal not satisfied it was just and equitable to extend time. Last incident alleged to be 27 September 2024. Claims undeveloped with no detail provided. Claimant had raised issues internally but declined to provide details at meeting in July 2024. Tribunal found claimant intended no action until prompted by dismissal.

Facts

Claimant was an advocacy worker for a charity dismissed for gross misconduct on 30 September 2024 following allegations he made of sexual harassment by his line manager. He was a Unison member and says his union representative told him proceedings could be 'paused' at an appeal meeting on 25 November 2024. He did not contact ACAS until 15 April 2025 (139 days late). He suffered personal difficulties including his daughter's serious illness in early 2025 and his own mental health issues. He raised claims for unfair dismissal and sex discrimination/harassment on 15 May 2025.

Decision

All claims dismissed as out of time. Unfair dismissal claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to claim in time despite union advice. Claimant should have checked time limits himself and did not verify that proceedings had been 'paused'. Sex discrimination and harassment claims dismissed as not just and equitable to extend time given claims were vague, undeveloped, and claimant chose not to pursue them before dismissal despite being aware of the issues.

Practical note

Even where a union representative gives incorrect advice about time limits, a claimant with the claimant's experience and abilities is expected to verify that advice and check that promised actions (like 'pausing' proceedings) have actually been taken; unexplained delays of many months will be fatal to both the 'not reasonably practicable' and 'just and equitable' tests.

Legal authorities cited

Robertson v Bexley Community Centre [2003] IRLR 434Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy [2019] EWCA Civ 2490Brodha v Hampshire Area Health Authority [1982] ICR 200Ashcroft v Haberdashers' Aske's Boys' School [2008] ICR 613Paczkowski v Sieradzka [2016] UKEAT/0111/16Schultz v Esso Petroleum Ltd [1999] EAT/1066/97O'Brien v Department for Constitutional Affairs [2009] IRLR 294Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust [2021] EWCA Civ 23Rathakrishnan v Pizza Express [2016] IRLR 278Kumari v Greater ManchesterDHL Supply Chain Ltd v Fazackerley [2018] UKEAT 0019_18_1004Keeble v British Coal Corporation [1997] IRLR 336Northumberland County Council v ThompsonDedman v British Building [1974] ICR 53Walls Meat Co v Khan [1979] ICR 52

Statutes

Limitation Act 1980 s.33Employment Rights Act 1996 s.111(2)Equality Act 2010 s.123

Case details

Case number
8001218/2025
Decision date
12 November 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
charity
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Role
Advocacy worker
Service
5 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No