Claimant v Huntswood CTC Limited

Claimant withdrew his unfair dismissal complaint on 9 May 2024 after accepting he did not have 2 years' service. Although he initially suggested it was automatically unfair, he later confirmed he did not wish to apply to amend to add that complaint.

The claim about being paid a lower day rate than female colleagues for the same work fell within the equality of terms provisions (ss.64-71) rather than direct discrimination. By s.70(1), s.39(2) has no effect where a sex equality clause applies or would apply. The complaint should have been brought under equality of terms provisions and was bound to fail as a direct discrimination claim.

The Pay allegation was brought nearly 8 years out of time. The claimant had no adequate explanation for the delay. There was significant forensic prejudice to the respondents as key witnesses were contractors whose memories had faded, the identity of the decision-maker was unclear, and the claimant's case relied on proving the reality differed from documentation. The Tribunal refused to extend time as it was not just and equitable. All claims against all respondents were dismissed.

The Pay allegation was brought nearly 8 years out of time. The claimant had no adequate explanation for the delay. There was significant forensic prejudice to the respondents as key witnesses were contractors whose memories had faded, the identity of the decision-maker was unclear, and the claimant's case relied on proving the reality differed from documentation. The Tribunal refused to extend time as it was not just and equitable. All claims against all respondents were dismissed.

The Blacklisting allegation was brought 5-9 years out of time. The claimant knew by 2015 that he had been marked 'DNU' and told he would not be re-engaged because he had broken contract. There was no adequate explanation for the delay. The complaint was weak in the Kumari sense — there was no evidence of any 'secret blacklist', the Itris records did not support it, and the claimant provided no actual comparator. Tribunal refused to extend time as not just and equitable.

The Blacklisting allegation was brought 5-9 years out of time. The claimant knew by 2015 that he had been marked 'DNU' and told he would not be re-engaged because he had broken contract. There was no adequate explanation for the delay. The complaint was weak in the Kumari sense — there was no evidence of any 'secret blacklist', the Itris records did not support it, and the claimant provided no actual comparator. Tribunal refused to extend time as not just and equitable.