Claimant v Fresh Property Group Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim remains to proceed to a final hearing. Case management orders were made for the unfair dismissal claim to continue.
Previously dismissed at an earlier preliminary hearing on 13 June 2024 when the tribunal found the claimant was not a disabled person at any material time. Claimant applied for reconsideration.
Claims relating to August 2020 recruitment process (not being offered opportunity to explain concerns, answers not given serious consideration, not offered second interview, not offered general manager role) were dismissed as out of time. Presented nearly 3 years after the events with no just and equitable reason to extend time. Respondent would suffer evidential prejudice as key witnesses had left and documents unavailable.
Facts
Claimant was employed from September 2018 to February 2023. He was absent from work with stress from 29 April 2022 until dismissal. He applied for a general manager role in August 2020 but was unsuccessful. He raised sex discrimination concerns internally in August 2020 and February 2021, identifying a comparator in September/October 2021. He was placed on a performance improvement plan and raised grievances in August 2021 and March 2022. He intimated tribunal claims to the respondent on twelve occasions between May and December 2022 before filing his claim on 2 May 2023.
Decision
This was a preliminary hearing addressing multiple procedural issues. The tribunal dismissed the claimant's recusal application, dismissed all his applications to amend, and dismissed his sex discrimination claims relating to August 2020 as being out of time, finding no just and equitable reason to extend time given the nearly 3-year delay, evidential prejudice to the respondent, and the claimant's knowledge and intimation of claims much earlier. Only the unfair dismissal claim proceeds to final hearing.
Practical note
Claimants must bring discrimination claims within strict time limits; even where the tribunal has discretion to extend time on just and equitable grounds, significant delay (here nearly 3 years) combined with evidential prejudice and the claimant's earlier knowledge will result in claims being time-barred, particularly where the claimant had been intimating claims for many months but failed to file.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6000785/2023
- Decision date
- 16 May 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- real estate
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Service
- 4 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No