Claimant v IKON Aluminium Systems Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was struck out for being presented out of time. The tribunal held that the claim was filed 170 days after dismissal on 18 July 2024, some 70 days beyond the statutory time limit. The claimant's application for a just and equitable extension was refused. The tribunal found that the claimant's reasons—inexperience, lack of knowledge, need for third-party support, and waiting for assistance from his sister-in-law—were not exceptional circumstances and were present in the vast majority of claimants who do comply with time limits, applying the principle in Barton v Wright Hassell that unrepresented litigants should not be afforded special treatment.
Facts
The claimant, a team leader employed from March 2016, suffered from Psoriatic arthritis. He resigned with immediate effect on 18 July 2024 following discussions with his employer about leaving with an ex gratia payment and 8 weeks notice pay. He commenced ACAS early conciliation on 11 November 2024 (already out of time) and filed his disability discrimination claim on 6 January 2025, some 170 days after his resignation. He sought assistance from Unite and relied on his sister-in-law for support, claiming he lacked knowledge of employment law and waited for her availability.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the claim as it was filed 70 days out of time. The claimant's application for a just and equitable extension was refused. The judge held that the claimant's reasons—inexperience, lack of knowledge, and need for family support—were not exceptional circumstances and were common to most unrepresented claimants who nevertheless comply with time limits. Applying Barton v Wright Hassell, the tribunal held that unrepresented status does not warrant special treatment.
Practical note
Lack of legal representation, inexperience, and reliance on family support are insufficient grounds for a just and equitable extension of time in discrimination claims; tribunals will not afford unrepresented claimants special dispensation from strict time limits.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6000336/2025
- Decision date
- 13 October 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- team leader
- Service
- 8 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No