Claimant v SLM Community Leisure Charitable Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal held that unfair dismissal claim was brought in time. The confusion over employer identity caused by ambiguous contract and misleading payslips/letterheads meant it was not reasonably practicable for claimant to issue claim against correct entity within primary limitation period. Claim filed within reasonable time thereafter. May proceed to full merits hearing.
Harassment claim relating to disclosure that claimant's child was undergoing gender reassignment in December 2018 was struck out as significantly out of time (over 5 years late). Tribunal found it not just and equitable to extend time given the delay, lack of formal complaint at the time, and significant forensic prejudice to respondent.
Harassment claim relating to questioning about claimant's son's autism diagnosis in November 2021 was struck out as significantly out of time (approximately 3 years late). Tribunal found it not just and equitable to extend time given the delay, forensic prejudice (witness has no recollection), and inadequate explanation for delay.
Harassment claim relating to comments about claimant dating a black man in January 2023 was struck out as significantly out of time (approximately 1 year late). Tribunal found it not just and equitable to extend time given the delay, lack of formal complaint, and forensic prejudice as alleged harasser no longer employed.
Harassment claim relating to Maxine Barnes' alleged comment about claimant's involvement with man of particular ethnicity in January 2023 was struck out as significantly out of time. Tribunal found confusion over employer identity inadequate explanation for delay in bringing harassment claims.
Harassment claims relating to disclosure and comments about claimant's child's gender reassignment in February 2023 were struck out as approximately 1 year out of time. Claims first specified only at preliminary hearing on 10 September 2024. Tribunal found it not just and equitable to extend time.
Facts
Claimant was employed from June 2018 and dismissed in June 2023. Her employment contract ambiguously named two separate legal entities as employer. Payslips and dismissal letters did not clearly identify the true employer (SLM Community Leisure Charitable Trust). Claimant initially filed claim against wrong entity (a dissolved company) in October 2023. After rejections and reconsideration attempts, she filed against Everyone Health Limited in February 2024, later amended to correct entity. She also brought harassment claims relating to incidents from 2018-2023 concerning her child's gender reassignment, disability discrimination, and race discrimination.
Decision
Tribunal held unfair dismissal claim was in time, finding it was not reasonably practicable for claimant to identify correct employer within primary limitation period due to genuinely confusing and ambiguous documentation from respondent. However, all harassment claims were struck out as significantly out of time (1-5 years late), with tribunal finding it not just and equitable to extend time given the delay, lack of contemporaneous complaint, and forensic prejudice to respondent.
Practical note
Employers who use ambiguous contracts, generic trading names, and unclear documentation may lose jurisdictional defences to late claims where claimants can show genuine confusion about the correct employing entity, but significant delay in bringing discrimination claims will still result in strike-out even where there was employer identity confusion.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6000702/2024
- Decision date
- 8 April 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Service
- 5 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep