Claimant v Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Struck out as outside tribunal jurisdiction. Claim presented nearly two months late. Tribunal found it was not reasonably practicable to present claim within three months and was not presented within reasonable time thereafter. Claimant was aware of time limits, took advice from CAB, but failed to comply.
Struck out as outside tribunal jurisdiction. Claims related to matters from late 2021 onwards were at least 14 months out of time. Tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time given the length of delay, lack of good reason, and prejudice to respondent in investigating stale claims where evidence would be affected.
Struck out as outside tribunal jurisdiction. Tribunal found no medical evidence supporting claimant's assertions of cognitive impairment preventing timely claim. Medical evidence from neurosurgeons showed claimant was well and working. No diagnosis of severe depression/anxiety or PTSD. Not just and equitable to extend time.
Unspecified 'other payments' claim struck out as outside tribunal jurisdiction, being presented outside the three month primary limitation period with no good reason for delay and not within reasonable further period.
Facts
Claimant was employed by Sainsbury's from September 2020 until dismissed for ill-health capability on 22 August 2024 (effective date 27 August 2024) after over a year of sick leave following an assault in May 2023. He appealed unsuccessfully and contacted ACAS on 6 December 2024, after the three-month limitation period had expired. He presented his ET1 on 22 January 2025 claiming unfair dismissal, race and disability discrimination relating to matters from late 2021 onwards, and other payments. The claimant attributed the delay to confusion about his dismissal date and claimed mental health issues including PTSD, cognitive impairment, depression and anxiety prevented timely claim submission.
Decision
The tribunal struck out all claims as outside its jurisdiction. The judge found the claimant's evidence about confusion over dismissal date and mental incapacity unconvincing and contradicted by medical evidence showing he was well and functional. The medical evidence did not support claims of cognitive impairment or severe mental illness. The claimant knew the time limits, took advice from CAB, and was able to pursue internal appeals and move house during the relevant period. It was not reasonably practicable to extend time for unfair dismissal, and not just and equitable for discrimination claims given the significant delay and prejudice to the respondent.
Practical note
Claimants asserting mental health as grounds for extending time limits must provide objective medical evidence of incapacity; self-reported symptoms and functional behaviour inconsistent with incapacity will be fatal to such applications.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6002342/2025
- Decision date
- 31 July 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Service
- 4 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep