Claimant v South Stars Entertainment Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was presented approximately 18 months after the 3-month time limit expired. The tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time because: the main witness (Mr Taylor) had left employment; the factual dispute would rely on witness memory which had faded; the claimant could have and apparently did present claims shortly after termination; and there was no adequate explanation for the delay.
The claim was presented outside the statutory time limit and it was reasonably practicable to have presented it in time. The claimant indicated he had presented a claim shortly after his termination in April 2022, demonstrating he knew how to bring claims and could have done so within the time limit. No adequate explanation was provided for the delay.
The pre-termination detriment claims (being labelled a troublemaker, tension with colleagues, Mr Taylor's changed attitude and derogatory comments) were presented outside the statutory time limit and it was reasonably practicable to have presented them in time, as evidenced by the claimant having presented a claim in April 2022.
The post-termination detriment claims (relating to denying previous statements about re-hiring, giving differing reasons for refusal to re-hire, and refusing to re-hire) may have been presented in time. There was insufficient evidence at the preliminary hearing to determine the dates of applications and rejections, so the tribunal could not make a final determination on jurisdiction. These claims will proceed to a final hearing where the time limit issue will be determined.
Facts
The claimant worked for the respondent, a holiday park entertainment company, until April 2022. He alleged he made protected disclosures about health and safety issues and inappropriate behaviour by a colleague, Mr Taylor, towards a child. The claimant, who has ADHD and autism, alleged he was dismissed following a dispute with Mr Taylor, and that his disability contributed to the dismissal. After his dismissal, the claimant applied for re-employment but was refused. He believed the refusal was linked to his earlier protected disclosures. The claimant presented his ET1 in February 2024, nearly two years after his dismissal.
Decision
The tribunal struck out all claims relating to the termination of employment as being out of time. The discrimination arising from disability claims failed the just and equitable test for extension due to the 18-month delay, prejudice to the respondent (key witness had left), and lack of adequate explanation. The automatic unfair dismissal and pre-termination whistleblowing detriment claims were struck out as it was reasonably practicable to present them in time (the claimant had presented a claim in April 2022). Post-termination detriment claims were allowed to proceed as there was insufficient evidence to determine whether they were in time.
Practical note
Significant delay in presenting claims (18 months beyond the primary time limit) will likely result in dismissal for being out of time, particularly where key witnesses have left employment and the claimant demonstrably knew how to bring proceedings timeously.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3302637/2024
- Decision date
- 18 March 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No