Claimant v Mitie Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success due to being significantly out of time (claim should have been brought by September 2023 but ACAS not contacted until May 2024, approximately 7 months late). Tribunal found no reasonable prospects of showing it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. Claimant had less than two years' service for ordinary unfair dismissal.
Claim struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success due to time limits. Claim presented approximately 7 months late with no sufficient explanation for delay. Tribunal found no reasonable prospects that claimant would show it was just and equitable to extend time, given the length of delay, lack of explanation, and no medical or health reasons provided.
Claim struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success due to time limits. Claim presented approximately 7 months late. Tribunal found no reasonable prospects that it would be just and equitable to extend time. Medical evidence did not support health reasons for delay and claimant did not rely on disability as explanation for delay.
Claim struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success due to time limits. Not clear what communication was relied on as protected disclosure. Even viewing matters favourably (based on appeal date of 19 June 2023), claim should have been brought by 18 September 2023 but not presented until July 2024. No reasonable prospects of showing it was not reasonably practicable to present in time.
Claimant complained about 'other payments' and being dismissed for something she did not do, and being bullied. All claims against first respondent struck out due to lack of jurisdiction arising from late presentation. All alleged acts occurred before dismissal on 7 June 2023, making them significantly out of time.
Facts
The claimant was employed by the first respondent (Mitie) as a security officer from 27 October 2021 to 7 June 2023, a period of approximately 19 months. She was dismissed and her appeal was heard on 19 June 2023. She subsequently worked for the second respondent (Vigilante Security). She brought a single claim form on 3 July 2024 covering both employments, alleging unfair dismissal, gender reassignment discrimination, disability discrimination, whistleblowing, and other matters against Mitie. The claimant has autism and learning difficulties. She claimed she contacted ACAS shortly after dismissal but experienced technical difficulties. ACAS early conciliation in respect of Mitie did not commence until 18 May 2024, approximately 10 months after dismissal.
Decision
The tribunal struck out all claims against the first respondent (Mitie) under Rule 38 as having no reasonable prospect of success due to jurisdictional time limit issues. The claim was presented approximately 7 months out of time. The tribunal found no reasonable prospects that the claimant could show it was not reasonably practicable to present ERA claims in time, or that it would be just and equitable to extend time for Equality Act claims. The claimant's explanation (technical difficulties with ACAS) was insufficiently specific and unsupported by evidence. The claim against the second respondent (Vigilante) will proceed.
Practical note
Even where a claimant has disabilities and learning difficulties that merit considerable sympathy, a discrimination claim will be struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success on jurisdiction grounds where it is presented 7 months late with no sufficient explanation for the delay beyond unsubstantiated assertions of technical difficulties.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3306383/2024
- Decision date
- 13 May 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Mitie Limited
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- security officer
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No