Claimant v Mills Hill Developments Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim dismissed as presented out of time. Claimant dismissed 1 July 2022 but did not notify ACAS until 21 December 2023, more than 14 months late. Claimant's attempt to extend the relevant period by raising grievance 17 months post-dismissal was rejected. Not just and equitable to extend time. Allegations post-1 July 2022 would alternatively have been struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Claim dismissed as presented out of time. All PCPs and disadvantages related to period between 19 May 2022 and 1 July 2022. Final act was 6 July 2022. Claim should have been presented by 5 October 2022 but was not notified to ACAS until 21 December 2023. Not just and equitable to extend time.
Claim dismissed as presented one day out of time. Alleged harassment occurred 21 December 2023, claimant notified ACAS same day, early conciliation ended 1 February 2024, claim should have been presented by 30 April 2024 but was presented 1 May 2024. Not just and equitable to extend time. Allegation related to refusal of appeal 17 months post-dismissal and would alternatively have been struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Detriments (a) and (b) dated 21 December 2023 dismissed as out of time for same reasons as harassment claim. Not just and equitable to extend time. Detriment (c) dated 10 January 2024 was in time but struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. Tribunal found claimant contrived fresh discrimination claim by making requests 17 months post-dismissal which would reasonably be refused.
Claim dismissed as presented out of time. Same PCPs and substantial disadvantages as indirect discrimination claim, all relating to period ending 6 July 2022. Duty to make reasonable adjustments ceased from that date. Claim presented well out of time. Not just and equitable to extend time.
Allegations (a) and (f) dismissed as out of time for same reasons as other disability claims. Not just and equitable to extend time. Allegation (g) dated 10 January 2024 was in time but struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success. Tribunal found these were contrived complaints arising from claimant's attempts to revisit dismissal 17 months later, not genuine post-dismissal discrimination.
Facts
Claimant employed as demi chef de partie from 19 May to 1 July 2022 when dismissed for failing probation. After 17 months' silence, on 19 December 2023 he raised grievance and requested appeal. Respondent refused on 21 December 2023 citing time elapsed. Claimant immediately notified ACAS and presented claim 1 May 2024 alleging all possible forms of disability discrimination relating to his Asperger's syndrome. Respondent argued claim massively out of time as dismissal occurred July 2022 but claim not presented until almost 2 years later.
Decision
Tribunal dismissed all claims as presented out of time. Final act was dismissal on 1 July 2022; claim should have been presented by 5 October 2022 but was not notified to ACAS until 21 December 2023. Claimant's 17-month delay and attempt to resurrect grievance did not create continuing act. Not just and equitable to extend time. Some allegations alternatively struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) as contrived attempts to manufacture discrimination claim with no reasonable prospect of success.
Practical note
Claimants cannot circumvent strict time limits by waiting 17 months post-dismissal then raising a grievance/appeal to create an artificial 'continuing act' - time runs from the original dismissal and such tactics may result in strike-out for abuse of process.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2402664/2024
- Decision date
- 13 August 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- demi chef de partie
- Service
- 1 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No