Claimant v Compass Group UK and Ireland Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim dismissed for want of jurisdiction as out of time. Tribunal found alleged discrimination occurred in autumn 2021, not 2022 as claimant claimed. Claim not submitted until October 2024, over 3 years later. Tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time given: extensive delay, inadequate explanation, poor quality evidence due to time elapsed, and claimant's ability to have known about time limits after ACAS involvement in December 2023.
Claim dismissed for want of jurisdiction as out of time. EDT was 23 August 2023, claim submitted 28 October 2024. Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for claimant to have submitted claim in time, particularly after two rejected ET1s and ACAS involvement. Delays between rejections and resubmissions (6 weeks, then 2 months) were not adequately explained. Also found claim not presented within a reasonable further period.
Notice pay claim dismissed for want of jurisdiction as out of time. Tribunal applied same reasonably practicable test as for unfair dismissal. Found no good reason for extensive delays in resubmitting claims after rejections, and by the time of third ET1, claimant ought to have known about time limits.
Holiday pay claim dismissed for want of jurisdiction as out of time. Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for claimant to submit in time, especially after involvement of ACAS and two rejected ET1s. No adequate explanation for delays.
Facts
The claimant was employed by the respondent as a casual chef from March 2019 until her dismissal with EDT of 23 August 2023. She alleged race discrimination occurring in autumn 2021 (though she claimed 2022), unfair dismissal, notice pay and holiday pay. She attempted to submit three ET1s: first on 1 February 2024 (10 days late), second on 20 June 2024, and finally this claim on 28 October 2024, all encountering problems with naming the respondent correctly. Her lay representative Mr Daniels assisted her, but there were unexplained delays of weeks and months between rejections and resubmissions.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims for want of jurisdiction as out of time. For the ERA claims, the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have submitted in time, especially after ACAS involvement in December 2023 and two rejected ET1s. For the discrimination claim, the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time given the extensive delay (over 3 years), inadequate explanations, prejudice to the respondent from faded evidence, and the claimant's ability to have known about time limits after ACAS contact.
Practical note
After ACAS involvement and rejected ET1s, claimants and their representatives must act with urgency to comply with time limits, and repeated administrative errors with unexplained delays will not justify extensions under either the reasonably practicable or just and equitable tests.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3311313/2024
- Decision date
- 16 October 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Chef
- Service
- 4 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep