Cases6004941/2024

Claimant v Esteem Multi-Academy Trust

29 October 2025Before Employment Judge S ShoreMidlands Eastin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

Claim presented on 18 February 2025 for dismissal on 13 September 2024 was outside the three-month time limit. Claimant failed to prove it was not reasonably practicable to bring claim in time. She knew she had been dismissed but did not indicate a wish to amend her claim to include unfair dismissal until 19 February 2025. Her explanation of ignorance was implausible given she was a graduate, and it would have been the work of a moment to search online for information about time limits.

Direct Discrimination(race)struck out

Amendment to add new race discrimination allegations refused. New allegations ranged from September 2022 to January 2024, all before the first ET1 was filed. All were out of time. The amendment was a major amendment adding completely new claims over a three-year period. The claims were very weak and speculative; the claimant went through an entire grievance process without once mentioning race discrimination. The balance of injustice and hardship favoured the respondent.

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)withdrawn

Withdrawn by claimant at preliminary hearing on 16 May 2025 before Employment Judge Broughton.

Facts

The claimant, a teaching assistant employed from December 2021 to September 2024, was dismissed for forging five MED3 fit note certificates. She had presented an ET1 in July 2024 while still employed, claiming race and disability discrimination. After her dismissal in September 2024, she sought to amend her claim to add unfair dismissal and further race discrimination allegations dating back to 2022. She did not attempt to amend her claim or file a new one until February 2025, five months after her dismissal.

Decision

The tribunal struck out all of the claimant's claims. The unfair dismissal claim was presented five months out of time and the claimant failed to show it was not reasonably practicable to bring it in time. The application to amend to add unfair dismissal and historic race discrimination claims was refused as the amendments were major, late, out of time, and the claims had no reasonable prospect of success. The remaining claims were also struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success.

Practical note

A claimant cannot rescue out-of-time claims through late amendment applications where there is no good explanation for the delay and the new claims have no reasonable prospect of success, particularly where credibility is seriously damaged by admitted misconduct.

Legal authorities cited

Robertson v Bexley Community Centre [2003] IRLR 434Palmer v Southend on Sea Borough Council [1984] ICR 372Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Limited [1974] ICR 53Marks and Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan [2005] EWCA Civ 470Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd v Britton [2022] IRLR 906Chandhok v Tirkey [2015] IRLR 195Selkent Bus Co v Moore [1996] IRLR 661Ali v Office of National Statistics [2005] IRLR 201Vaughan v Modality Partnership [2021] IRLR 97

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.111(2)EqA 2010 s.123EqA 2010 s.136ERA 1996 s.94

Case details

Case number
6004941/2024
Decision date
29 October 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
education
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Teaching Assistant
Service
3 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No