Claimant v Allegis Group Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was dismissed because it was brought out of time (approximately 15 months late) and the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. The claimant knew about the rejection of her complaint in November 2022 but chose not to make further enquiries via subject access request until December 2023, and did not commence ACAS until May 2024. The tribunal found the claimant was aware of time limits from prior tribunal experience and could reasonably have made enquiries sooner. Material evidential prejudice to respondents, particularly given the delay and the weak merits of the claim on the perception threshold test.
Facts
The claimant worked as an agency statistician for the first respondent (recruitment agency) on assignment to the second respondent (pharmaceutical company) from September to October 2022. A dispute arose over authorship of a Statistical Analysis Plan. The claimant raised an 'ethical' complaint about Mr Teare (R2 employee) allegedly taking credit for her work. R2 investigated in November 2022. During that investigation, Mr Teare made comments about the claimant's communication style which the claimant later alleged evidenced perceived disability discrimination. R2 concluded there was 'no issue' on 30 November 2022. The claimant did not pursue the matter further until she made a subject access request of R2 in December 2023, over a year later, triggered by separate unsuccessful recruitment processes with R2. The SAR response in March 2024 disclosed Mr Teare's comments.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the claim because it was brought approximately 15 months out of time. While the claimant did not know about Mr Teare's specific comments until March 2024, the tribunal found she was dissatisfied with the investigation outcome in November 2022 and, being an experienced litigant who understood time limits, could and should have made a subject access request much sooner. The tribunal found the delay was unreasonable and caused material evidential prejudice to both respondents. The tribunal also weighed against extension that the merits of the claim were weak, particularly on the Norfolk v Coffey perception threshold test. The tribunal refused to strike out the claim on merits grounds but indicated a deposit order would have been appropriate.
Practical note
A claimant's lack of knowledge of key facts supporting a claim does not automatically justify a just and equitable extension of time if the claimant could reasonably have discovered those facts earlier through available mechanisms such as subject access requests, particularly where the claimant has prior tribunal experience and awareness of time limits.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1401475/2024
- Decision date
- 11 November 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Statistician
- Service
- 1 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No