Claimant v Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust

The tribunal struck out 26 of 27 direct race discrimination complaints as presented outside the primary time limit, finding it was not just and equitable to extend time due to the extreme delay (matters from 2012–2021), lack of credible reason for delay, and forensic prejudice to the respondent. Only one complaint (not being treated as a serious candidate for a vacancy in May 2024) remained in time. A further complaint (selection for redundancy in November 2023) was allowed to proceed on the basis the claimant had a reasonable prospect of showing it formed part of conduct extending over a period with the in-time complaint.

Single complaint of direct sex discrimination relating to conduct from 2012 to 2014 was struck out as presented outside the primary time limit and the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time given the delay (over 10 years), absence of good reason, and significant forensic prejudice to the respondent.

All 14 complaints of harassment related to race (occurring between May 2012 and March 2021) were struck out as presented outside the primary time limit. The tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time due to the extreme delay (3 to 12 years), lack of credible explanation, and significant forensic prejudice to the respondent, including loss of witnesses and memory fade.

All 15 complaints of harassment related to sex (from 2012 to December 2023) were struck out as presented outside the primary time limit. The tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time, noting the delay ranged from months to over a decade, the claimant provided no credible reason for delay, and the respondent would suffer forensic prejudice. The December 2023 complaint was particularly unspecific (involving 'shifty body language' in a lift) such that fair trial would be impossible.

Three victimisation detriments were claimed. The first (in 2013) was struck out as out of time with no just and equitable extension. The second (November 2023 selection for redundancy) was allowed to proceed as the claimant had a reasonable prospect of showing it formed conduct extending over a period with the in-time third complaint (dismissal on 30 June 2024). The third complaint (the dismissal itself) was in time and will proceed to final hearing.

Unfair dismissal complaint was presented outside the primary three-month time limit (dismissed 30 June 2024, claim presented 19 November 2024, seven weeks late). Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present in time: she knew of time limits having presented Claim 1 in August 2024, she had sought ACAS advice from June 2024, she was in a senior tech role and capable of researching her rights. The tribunal rejected her assertion that ACAS told her she could not claim because she received redundancy pay as not credible.