Cases6003640/2024

Claimant v Uandicare

4 August 2025Before Employment Judge AinscoughLiverpoolremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Detrimentstruck out

The claim was presented outside the prescribed time limit under section 48 ERA 1996. The tribunal found it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the complaint within time, but concluded that the claimant did not present her complaint within a reasonable time thereafter, so the claim was dismissed as out of time.

Direct Discriminationstruck out

The claim was presented outside the prescribed time limit under section 123 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time to allow the claimant to pursue the complaint, so it was dismissed as out of time.

Harassmentstruck out

The claim was presented outside the prescribed time limit under section 123 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time to allow the claimant to pursue the complaint, so it was dismissed as out of time.

Victimisationstruck out

The claim was presented outside the prescribed time limit under section 123 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time to allow the claimant to pursue the complaint, so it was dismissed as out of time.

Facts

Ms Kauser brought claims against her former employer Uandicare for whistleblowing detriment, direct discrimination, harassment and victimisation. All claims were presented outside the applicable time limits. This was a preliminary hearing to determine whether time should be extended to allow the claims to proceed.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed all claims as out of time. For the whistleblowing detriment claim, although it accepted it was not reasonably practicable to present in time, the claimant had not presented within a reasonable time thereafter. For the discrimination claims, the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time.

Practical note

Claimants must act promptly even when time limits are extended; meeting the 'not reasonably practicable' test for whistleblowing claims is insufficient if the claim is not then presented within a reasonable further period.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.48EqA 2010 s.123

Case details

Case number
6003640/2024
Decision date
4 August 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No