Claimant v Hampshire Trust Bank PLC
Outcome
Individual claims
Claimant did not have the minimum two years' continuous service required to bring an unfair dismissal claim. The claim was struck out on this jurisdictional ground.
Claim re-characterised as discrimination claim. Respondent agreed to amendment so that constructive dismissal allegation became seventh alleged act of direct discrimination. The tribunal found the claim was already encompassed by the particulars of claim.
Eight alleged acts of direct discrimination on grounds of age. Claims not struck out. Tribunal found sufficient reasonable prospects of establishing continuing discrimination and/or that it would be just and equitable to extend time given claimant's health issues and other stressors. Matter to proceed to full merits hearing.
Eight alleged acts of direct discrimination on grounds of race. Claims not struck out. Tribunal found sufficient reasonable prospects of establishing continuing discrimination and/or that it would be just and equitable to extend time given claimant's health issues and other stressors. Matter to proceed to full merits hearing.
Eight alleged acts of direct discrimination on grounds of sex. Claims not struck out. Tribunal found sufficient reasonable prospects of establishing continuing discrimination and/or that it would be just and equitable to extend time given claimant's health issues and other stressors. Matter to proceed to full merits hearing.
Eight alleged acts of direct discrimination on grounds of perceived disability. Claims not struck out. Tribunal found sufficient reasonable prospects of establishing continuing discrimination and/or that it would be just and equitable to extend time given claimant's health issues and other stressors. Matter to proceed to full merits hearing.
Facts
The claimant worked for Hampshire Trust Bank and alleged eight acts of direct discrimination on grounds of age, race, sex, and perceived disability. The earliest incident was 14 December 2023, with a cluster in July 2024, and the final incident on 24 October 2024. She resigned and characterised this as constructive dismissal. She also brought an unfair dismissal claim. The claims were presented on 12 December 2024, meaning the first seven alleged discriminatory acts were out of time. During the relevant period, the claimant experienced significant health problems including uterine polyps requiring surgery, ongoing pain, being stalked until September/October 2024, mental health difficulties, and eviction from her accommodation in October 2024 due to inability to pay rent.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim as the claimant lacked two years' service. The discrimination claims were not struck out. The tribunal found there were reasonable prospects of establishing continuing discrimination between the seven out-of-time acts and the in-time act. Even if continuing discrimination could not be established, the tribunal found strong arguments that it would be just and equitable to extend time given the claimant's serious health issues, stalking, eviction, and mental health stresses which provided credible reasons for the delay in bringing claims.
Practical note
Unrepresented claimants experiencing significant health and personal crises during limitation periods may successfully argue for just and equitable extensions even where delays are substantial, particularly where medical and housing stresses are well-documented and their impact on ability to pursue claims is credible.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6021735/2024
- Decision date
- 29 August 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No