Cases3311313/2024

Claimant v Compass Group UK and Ireland Ltd

16 October 2025Before Employment Judge BartlettWatfordremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Direct Discrimination(race)struck out

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.

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

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.

Breach of Contractstruck out

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 Paystruck out

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

Robertson v Bexley Community Centre (Leisure Link)Jones v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2024] EAT 2Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan [2018] ICR 1194Southwark LBC v Afolabi [2003] ICR 800Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy [2019] EWCA Civ 2490Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1984] ICR 372Porter v Bandridge Ltd [1978] ICR 943Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser EAT 0165/07Miller v Ministry of Justice

Statutes

Limitation Act 1980 s.33EqA 2010 s.123ERA 1996 s.207BERA 1996 s.111(2)

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