Cases6012045/2024

Claimant v Leeds Trinity University

20 October 2025Before Employment Judge AyreLeedsremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)struck out

The tribunal found it would not be just and equitable to extend time. The claimant failed to discharge the burden of proving reasons for delay. He was aware of time limits, had trade union contact, and was able to conduct other legal proceedings concurrently. His ADHD assessment and divorce proceedings were not sufficient reasons for the substantial delay. The claim also appeared to lack merit on its face.

Facts

The claimant was employed by Leeds Trinity University from September 2022 to January 2024. He started ACAS early conciliation on 15 April 2024, one day before the primary time limit expired, and received the certificate on 24 May 2024. However, he did not file his disability discrimination claim until 18 September 2024, almost three months after the extended deadline. He claimed he was dealing with ADHD assessment, divorce proceedings, custody proceedings, and was unaware of time limits. The tribunal found his evidence not credible, noting he had trade union support, was able to conduct other legal proceedings, and could have easily researched time limits online.

Decision

The tribunal refused to extend time on just and equitable grounds. The claimant failed to provide persuasive reasons for the delay. His ADHD assessment and divorce proceedings did not prevent him from filing on time, especially as he was conducting other legal proceedings concurrently. The tribunal found the claim lacked merit on its face, and extending time would prejudice the respondent nearly two years after the events. The tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim.

Practical note

Unrepresented claimants cannot rely on personal difficulties to excuse missing time limits when they have demonstrably been able to take other legal steps, and tribunals will consider apparent merits when exercising just and equitable discretion.

Legal authorities cited

Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd v Mr G Britton EA-2020-000972-OORobertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link [2003] IRLR 434Jones v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2024] EWCA Civ 1568Jones v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2024] EAT 2Rodgers v Bodfari (Transport) Ltd 1973 325 NIRC

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.123

Case details

Case number
6012045/2024
Decision date
20 October 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
education
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Service
1 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No