Claimant v Hovis Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim dismissed for being out of time. Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to have presented the claim in time. The claimant's delay was caused by attempting to secure legal representation and then not returning promptly to his McKenzie Friend. Mental health and alleged learning difficulties did not prevent timely presentation.
Claim for unpaid paternity pay dismissed for being out of time. Same test as unfair dismissal applied: it was reasonably practicable to present in time. Delay not excused by health or other factors.
Claim dismissed as tribunal found 11-day delay was not just and equitable. Allegations related to bullying by manager Damian dating back to 2023-May 2024, making claim several months out of time. No good reason for delay. Tribunal had serious doubts about merit of discriminatory dismissal claim given dismissing manager (Trevor) had not previously discriminated against claimant.
Claim dismissed as 11-day delay not just and equitable. Claimant and representative unable to clearly identify disability (back condition, learning difficulties, or mental health) or particularise unlawful conduct or reasonable adjustments. Tribunal considered claim to be of little merit and poorly particularised.
Facts
Claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct on 16 August 2024 after a collision while driving a forklift truck. He appealed internally and raised a grievance. He contacted ACAS on 18 October 2024 and exited early conciliation on 29 November 2024, giving him until 29 December 2024 to file. He spent time trying to secure solicitor representation which proved too expensive, then did not return to his McKenzie Friend promptly enough. The claim was filed on 9 January 2025, 11 days late. Claims included unfair dismissal, breach of contract for unpaid paternity pay, race discrimination relating to workplace bullying by a manager named Damian, and disability discrimination.
Decision
All claims dismissed as out of time. For unfair dismissal and breach of contract, tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present in time—the claimant's delay was not caused by health issues or learning difficulties but by delay in contacting his representative. For discrimination claims, tribunal held 11-day delay was not just and equitable given no good reason for delay, balance of prejudice favoured respondent, and claims appeared to have little merit and were poorly particularised.
Practical note
A short delay of just 11 days can still result in claims being struck out if there is no good reason for the delay, particularly where the claimant was able to participate in internal processes during the relevant period and the claims appear weak or inadequately particularised.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3200039/2025
- Decision date
- 16 October 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Hovis Ltd
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Forklift truck driver
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep