Claimant v Boots Management Services Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as they were presented out of time. The tribunal refused to extend time on just and equitable grounds, finding the claimant had access to legal advice throughout, knew of time limits from early Acas engagement, delayed 9 months from knowledge of alleged discrimination, and gave unconvincing reasons for delay including prioritising university appeal and police caution matter.
Claim related to dismissal on 17 March 2023 for gross misconduct after claimant took controlled medication for his ADHD from pharmacy. Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as presented out of time and tribunal refused to extend time on just and equitable grounds.
Claim related to communication by respondent to University College London and General Pharmaceutical Council on 15 May 2023 stating they had dismissed the claimant, which claimant characterised as GDPR breach and breach of confidentiality. Claimant became aware 23 July 2023 but delayed filing until April 2024. Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to being out of time.
Facts
Claimant was a trainee store advisor at Boots pharmacy who had ADHD and other mental health conditions. On 9 March 2023, unable to source his ADHD medication for two weeks, he took controlled drugs from the pharmacy while at work. He was caught, investigated, and summarily dismissed for gross misconduct on 17 March 2023. His appeal was rejected on 31 March 2023. He also complained about a communication from Boots to his university and the General Pharmaceutical Council in May 2023. He had early contact with Acas in March 2023 and access to legal advice throughout, but did not file his disability discrimination claim until April 2024.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims for lack of jurisdiction, finding they were presented out of time. The tribunal refused to extend time on just and equitable grounds. Despite the claimant's mental health difficulties, the judge found he had continuous access to legal advice, knew about time limits from early Acas engagement, delayed 9 months after becoming aware of alleged discrimination, and gave unconvincing reasons for the delay including prioritising other matters.
Practical note
Access to legal advice and knowledge of tribunal procedures will count heavily against a claimant seeking a just and equitable extension, even where they have significant mental health difficulties that may have affected judgment regarding the underlying conduct.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3304006/2024
- Decision date
- 24 September 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Trainee Store Advisor
- Service
- 8 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No