Claimant v Cragg and Roberts Limited

The claim was submitted almost two months out of time. The tribunal found the EDT was 19 July 2021, and the claimant commenced EC on 19 October 2021, one day outside the primary time limit. The claimant was legally represented throughout, and it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time. The delay was caused by the legal advisor's mistaken belief about time limits. Where skilled advisors are engaged and mistake the time limit, the claim is out of time and no extension will be granted under the reasonably practicable test.

The claim was submitted almost two months out of time, with the last act of discrimination being the EDT on 19 July 2021. However, the tribunal exercised its discretion to extend time on just and equitable grounds. The tribunal considered that the claimant would suffer the greatest prejudice if unable to pursue her claim, while the respondent would receive a windfall. The delay was minimal (effectively one day led to the time limit issue), would not affect the ability to conduct a fair hearing, and was caused by a legal advisor's error rather than the claimant's fault. The claim was allowed to proceed.

Direct sex discrimination claim mentioned in the case summary. Time limit issue determined in the claimant's favour on just and equitable grounds, allowing the claim to proceed to a full merits hearing.

Harassment claim mentioned in the case summary as part of the sex discrimination claims. Time limit issue determined in the claimant's favour on just and equitable grounds, allowing the claim to proceed to a full merits hearing.

No evidence was presented regarding the date of payment or the alleged deductions. The tribunal did not determine the time limit issue at this preliminary hearing. The judgment was corrected to remove this claim from those determined to be out of time. Whether the claim is in time will be considered at the final hearing.

This claim was not the subject of the preliminary hearing on time limits. The judgment was corrected to clarify that any limitation issue regarding holiday pay should be considered at the final hearing.

This claim for wrongful dismissal was not the subject of the preliminary hearing on time limits. The judgment was corrected to clarify that any limitation issue regarding breach of contract should be considered at the final hearing.