Claimant v Sysco GB Limited

Claim was struck out for being presented outside the applicable time limit. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the claim in time. Claimant had contacted ACAS in December 2024 but failed to follow up when no certificate arrived. Following rejection of initial claim, claimant waited 14 days before contacting ACAS again. Tribunal concluded claimant failed to discharge burden of showing it was not reasonably practicable to present in time.

Claimant applied to amend claim on 08 October 2025 to add direct race discrimination. Application refused as tribunal found this was a new claim requiring new facts, not a relabelling exercise. The original ET1 made no reference to stereotyping or comparator treatment. Claim was also 6-7 months out of time and tribunal found it not just and equitable to extend time.

Claimant applied to amend claim on 08 October 2025 to add victimisation. Application refused. Tribunal found no reference in original claim to any protected act as defined by s.27 Equality Act. This was a new claim, not a relabelling. Claim was 6-7 months out of time and tribunal found it not just and equitable to extend time.

Claimant applied to amend claim on 08 October 2025 to add automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures relating to food safety. Application refused. Tribunal found the original claim made no clear reference to a protected disclosure beyond a vague reference to challenging a manager's order. This was a new claim requiring further particulars. Claim was 6-7 months out of time and tribunal found it not just and equitable to extend time.