Claimant v Rullion Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was presented outside the limitation period in section 111 ERA 1996 when it was reasonably practicable to have presented it in time. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the claim.
The automatic unfair dismissal claim for making a protected disclosure was presented outside the limitation period in section 111 ERA 1996 when it was reasonably practicable to have presented it in time. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction.
The claim of direct disability discrimination by dismissal against the first respondent was presented outside the limitation period but the Tribunal found it just and equitable to extend time to vest jurisdiction. The claim survives the strike-out and deposit order applications.
The claims of direct disability discrimination against the second respondent were presented outside the limitation period in section 123 EqA 2010. The Tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time and has no jurisdiction.
The harassment claim against the first respondent was presented outside the limitation period but the Tribunal found it just and equitable to extend time to vest jurisdiction. The claim survives the strike-out and deposit order applications.
The harassment claims against the second respondent were presented outside the limitation period in section 123 EqA 2010. The Tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time and has no jurisdiction.
Facts
Mr Gilbert brought claims against two respondents - his employer Rullion Limited and E.ON UK Plc. He was dismissed and brought claims of unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing, direct disability discrimination, and harassment related to disability. All claims were presented outside the applicable limitation periods.
Decision
The Tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal and whistleblowing claims against the first respondent as out of time when it was reasonably practicable to present in time. It extended time on a just and equitable basis for the discrimination and harassment claims against the first respondent to proceed, but refused to extend time for any claims against the second respondent. The first respondent's strike-out and deposit order applications were refused.
Practical note
A self-represented claimant may obtain just and equitable extensions for discrimination claims against their direct employer but not against a client company, with unfair dismissal claims failing the more stringent reasonable practicability test.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1809760/2024
- Decision date
- 3 May 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Rullion Limited
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No