Claimant v Lidl Great Britain
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim presented out of time (final payslip 30 October 2023, claim due by 11 March 2024, filed 8 May 2024). Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to bring the claim in time. Claimant's ignorance of time limits was unreasonable as ACAS website makes time limits clear. Periods in India, job searching, and financial hardship not accepted as excuses. Struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
Claim for failure to ensure rest breaks presented out of time (resignation 10 September 2023, claim due by 20 January 2024, filed 8 May 2024). Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to bring the claim in time. Claimant had researched ACAS and should have been aware of time limits. Struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
Claimant indicated he thought his discrimination claim would be on basis of race. Claim presented out of time (3+ months late). Tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. No good excuse given for the delay. Claimant's ignorance of time limits was unreasonable. Struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
Claim form alleged harassment and discrimination but did not specify protected characteristic. Claimant later indicated race. Presented out of time and tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. No good excuse for delay. Struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
Facts
Claimant was employed as Customer Assistant from 8 November 2022 until he resigned with immediate effect on 10 September 2023. He complained of unlawful deductions from wages (final payslip 30 October 2023), failure to ensure rest breaks, and alleged harassment and race discrimination. He notified ACAS on 16 October 2023 (certificate 27 November 2023) but did not file his claim until 8 May 2024, between 2 and 3.5 months out of time. Claimant was a law student who had researched bringing claims online via ACAS, traveled between India and UK, experienced bereavement, and was unemployed and job-searching during the relevant period.
Decision
Tribunal struck out all claims for lack of jurisdiction as presented out of time. For ERA/WTR claims, tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to bring claims in time - claimant's ignorance of time limits was unreasonable as he had researched ACAS website which makes time limits clear, and periods in India, job searching and financial hardship were not good excuses. For discrimination claims, tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time as no good excuse was given for the delay.
Practical note
Even for unrepresented claimants, ignorance of time limits will not excuse late presentation if they have consulted resources like the ACAS website which clearly state time limits, and personal circumstances like bereavement, unemployment and job-searching will rarely provide sufficient grounds for extension.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3304742/2024
- Decision date
- 8 April 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Customer Assistant
- Service
- 10 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No