Claimant v Royal Mail Group Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim struck out for being presented out of time (almost 9 months after termination vs 3 month limit). Tribunal found it not just and equitable to extend time given considerable delay, no explanation from claimant for delay despite being directed to provide one, likely prejudice to respondent's witnesses' ability to recall events, and no evidence claimant's anxiety prevented timely filing.
Claim struck out for being presented out of time. Same reasoning as disability discrimination claim: delay of almost 9 months, no explanation provided despite tribunal directions, tribunal not satisfied it would be just and equitable to extend the three-month limitation period.
Claim struck out for being presented out of time. Claimant failed to discharge burden of showing it was not reasonably practicable to present claim within primary limitation period. ACAS notified over 5 months after termination (over 2 months late). Even if reasonably practicable test met, further delay of almost 4 months from end of ACAS conciliation to filing ET1 was not reasonable. No explanation or evidence provided by claimant.
Claimant indicated claim for 'other payments' on ET1 but provided no details. Claim struck out along with all other claims for being out of time.
Facts
Claimant's employment ended 7 March 2024. He contacted ACAS on 16 August 2024 (over 5 months later, already past the 3-month primary limitation date) and early conciliation ended 2 September 2024. He filed his ET1 on 31 December 2024, almost 9 months after termination. He sought to bring claims for disability discrimination, race discrimination, whistleblowing detriments and other payments. On the ET1 form he acknowledged his claim was out of time. He was directed by Employment Judge Palmer to provide witness statement and evidence explaining the delay but failed to comply. He did not attend the preliminary hearing on time limits and did not contact the tribunal or respondent to explain his absence.
Decision
The tribunal struck out all claims for being presented outside the statutory time limits. For the whistleblowing claim, the claimant failed to show it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, and even if he had, the further delay was not reasonable. For the discrimination claims, the tribunal concluded it was not just and equitable to extend time given the considerable 9-month delay, absence of explanation despite being directed to provide one, likely prejudice to respondent's witnesses, and apparent awareness of time limits from at least the ACAS conciliation stage without prompt action thereafter.
Practical note
Claimants must comply with tribunal orders to explain delay when seeking extensions of time, and failure to attend a time limit hearing or provide evidence of reasons for delay (even where disability may be relevant) will likely result in strike-out.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6023587/2024
- Decision date
- 15 August 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- logistics
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No