Claimant v Secretary of State for Justice
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim presented out of time. Effective date of termination was 8 May 2024, time limit expired 7 August 2024. Claimant did not start early conciliation until 21 August 2024, after time limit had expired. Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present claim in time - claimant was aware of right to claim, was assisted by trade union. Claimant knew claim was out of time from 12 August 2024 but did not present claim until 26 October 2024. Claim dismissed.
Claim presented out of time. Last alleged act of harassment was in December 2022. No continuing act established. Claim presented in October 2024, over 18 months late. Tribunal found it not just and equitable to extend time - claimant was member of trade union, raised complaints in August 2023 but did not pursue formal grievance or tribunal claim. Significant forensic prejudice to respondent given time lapse and oral nature of allegations. Claim dismissed.
Victimisation claims relating to acts between December 2022 and June 2023 dismissed as out of time - gap in allegations between June 2023 and dismissal in May 2024 meant no continuing act. Not just and equitable to extend time for these earlier claims. However, victimisation claims relating to dismissal on 8 May 2024 and appeal outcome on 29 July 2024 allowed to proceed - tribunal granted leave to amend to add appeal outcome allegation, and found these claims in time (or just and equitable to extend time). Only these two victimisation allegations proceed to full hearing.
Facts
Claimant, a Black British Probation Services officer employed from May 2018, was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct on 8 May 2024 for taking a work computer out of the jurisdiction and working on it abroad. He appealed unsuccessfully, with the appeal dismissed on 29 July 2024. The claimant alleged race discrimination (harassment) dating back to December 2022, and victimisation following a protected act in December 2022, including denial of overtime, being placed on an improvement plan, and ultimately dismissal. He was a trade union member (Unison) who relied on the union to present his claim, obtained legal advice in August 2024 that his claim was out of time, but did not present his claim until 26 October 2024.
Decision
The tribunal granted the claimant's application to amend his claim to add the appeal outcome as an act of victimisation, balancing the minimal prejudice to the respondent against severe prejudice to the claimant. However, the tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim as out of time (not reasonably practicable to present in time and not presented within reasonable further period), and dismissed the harassment and earlier victimisation claims as out of time and not just and equitable to extend. Only the victimisation claims relating to dismissal and appeal outcome were allowed to proceed to a full merits hearing, being found either in time or just and equitable to extend time.
Practical note
Even where a claimant is assisted by a trade union, fault of that adviser in relation to time limits will generally be attributed to the claimant, making it difficult to establish it was not reasonably practicable to present an unfair dismissal claim in time, though poor union advice may be considered under the just and equitable discretion for discrimination claims where delay is relatively short and forensic prejudice limited.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6016407/2024
- Decision date
- 8 August 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Secretary of State for Justice
- Sector
- central government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Probation Services officer
- Service
- 6 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No