Claimant v Sky Subscriber Services Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant did not discharge the burden of proof that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim on time. Despite mental health impacts and a medical condition, the claimant was looking for work, caring for her son, and engaged with ACAS, indicating cognitive ability to research time limits online. No substantial impediment to timely filing was established.
The tribunal extended jurisdiction under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 on a just and equitable basis. The nine-day delay was short, the claimant had reasonable explanations (medical condition, planned operation, mental health impact), no forensic prejudice to respondent, and the claimant is unrepresented. Case to proceed to full merits hearing.
The tribunal extended jurisdiction under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 on a just and equitable basis. The nine-day delay was short, the claimant had reasonable explanations (medical condition, planned operation, mental health impact), no forensic prejudice to respondent, and the claimant is unrepresented. Case to proceed to full merits hearing.
Facts
The claimant was employed as a Site Co-ordinator for over 11 years and was dismissed by redundancy on 26 September 2024. She suffers from Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease causing chronic pain and takes strong medication including Pregabalin. She commenced ACAS early conciliation timeously on 12 December 2024, with certificate issued 23 January 2025, but did not file her claim until 4 March 2025, nine days outside the one-month deadline. She is a single mother caring for a seven-year-old child and had a foot operation planned (which was cancelled twice before taking place in April 2025).
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim as the claimant failed to establish it was not reasonably practicable to file in time, given she was looking for work, caring for her child, and engaged with ACAS, all indicating cognitive ability to research time limits. However, the tribunal extended time for the disability discrimination claims under the just and equitable test, finding the nine-day delay short, the claimant's medical and personal circumstances a reasonable explanation, no forensic prejudice to the respondent, and the claimant unrepresented.
Practical note
The 'reasonably practicable' test for unfair dismissal time limits is significantly stricter than the 'just and equitable' test for discrimination claims; a claimant's ability to perform other cognitively demanding tasks during the limitation period may undermine an argument that ignorance of time limits was reasonable.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8000577/2025
- Decision date
- 30 June 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- telecoms
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Site Co-ordinator
- Service
- 11 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No