Claimant v BDO Services Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found it would not be just and equitable to extend time. Claim was 18 months out of time. Although claimant had serious health issues (SLE, PTSD, anxiety) following termination in September 2022, tribunal found he could have brought claim from spring 2023 when fit for work. The delay caused severe prejudice to respondent due to lack of documentary evidence and faded memories, making fair trial impossible.
Tribunal found it was not reasonably practicable for claimant to present claim by 14 December 2022 due to serious ill health, but claim presented on 16 June 2024 was not within a reasonable time after expiry of primary time limit. Medical evidence did not show claimant was incapable of starting proceedings from spring 2023. Tribunal held no jurisdiction to hear the claim.
Same reasoning as unfair dismissal claim. Not reasonably practicable to bring claim by primary time limit, but claim not presented within reasonable time thereafter. Tribunal held no jurisdiction.
Claim related to notice pay. Same reasoning as unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction claims. Not presented within reasonable time after expiry of primary time limit. Tribunal held no jurisdiction.
Facts
Claimant worked as graduate trainee in audit from March 2021 to September 2022, resigning due to ill health citing extreme working hours. He developed Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) after a COVID booster in December 2021, with symptoms becoming severe from August 2022. He experienced life-threatening illness, multiple hospitalisations, and was diagnosed with SLE in December 2022 and subsequently PTSD and anxiety. He found new employment with NHS in May 2023. He brought tribunal claims in June 2024, approximately 18 months after termination, alleging disability discrimination, unfair dismissal, unlawful deductions and breach of contract.
Decision
Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the claims as they were presented out of time. While acknowledging claimant's serious ill health made it not reasonably practicable to bring claims by December 2022, the tribunal found he could have brought proceedings from spring 2023 when fit for work. The 18-month delay caused severe prejudice to the respondent due to absence of documentary evidence and faded memories. The tribunal refused to extend time under the just and equitable test as a fair trial was no longer possible.
Practical note
Even where a claimant has compelling health reasons for initial delay, an extension of 18 months will be refused where the delay has so damaged the cogency of evidence (through lack of documentation and faded memories) that a fair trial is impossible, particularly where the claimant's case depends on proving the respondent's knowledge during employment.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2221535/2024
- Decision date
- 26 February 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- graduate trainee in audit/financial services
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep