Cases2401944/2024

Claimant v Consensus Support Services Limited

12 February 2025Before Employment Judge Miller-VareyManchester

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Constructive Dismissalstruck out

The claim was presented outside the time limit under s.111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 when it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time. The tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim.

Whistleblowingstruck out

The claim for whistleblowing detriment was presented outside the time limit applicable under s.48(3) of the ERA when it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time. The tribunal had no jurisdiction.

Direct Discriminationstruck out

The complaints of discrimination were presented outside the time limit specified in s.123(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010 and it was not just and equitable to permit them to proceed out of time. No jurisdiction to hear.

Harassmentstruck out

The complaints of harassment were presented outside the time limit specified in s.123(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010 and it was not just and equitable to permit them to proceed out of time. No jurisdiction to hear.

Facts

The claimant, Ifraax Shide, brought claims against Consensus Support Services Limited for constructive unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment, discrimination and harassment. The case proceeded to a preliminary hearing on the issue of jurisdiction and time limits. The claimant appeared in person while the respondent was represented by counsel.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed all claims on jurisdictional grounds as they were presented outside the applicable time limits. For constructive dismissal and whistleblowing, it was reasonably practicable to present in time. For discrimination and harassment claims, it was not just and equitable to extend time.

Practical note

Time limits are strictly enforced in employment tribunals - even where claims have merit, failure to present within statutory time limits will result in dismissal for lack of jurisdiction unless there are compelling reasons why time should be extended.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.111ERA 1996 s.48(3)EqA 2010 s.123(1)(a)

Case details

Case number
2401944/2024
Decision date
12 February 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No