Cases2204781/2021

Claimant v TFS Derivatives Limited

10 February 2025Before Employment Judge E P Morgan KCLondon Centralremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Constructive Dismissal(disability)struck out

The discriminatory constructive dismissal claim brought under s.39 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as it was filed one day outside the statutory limitation period. The tribunal declined to extend time on just and equitable grounds because the claimant provided no adequate evidence to explain the delay, only an unsupported assertion that his solicitors were at fault.

Whistleblowingwithdrawn

The complaint of detriment on grounds of protected disclosures under s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996, which formed part of the first claim (2204781/21), was withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed pursuant to Rule 51.

Facts

The claimant brought two claims. The second claim, filed on 23 March 2022, alleged discriminatory constructive dismissal on grounds of disability. The claim was filed one day outside the statutory time limit. The claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing and provided no witness statement. His lay representative asserted that the delay was due to fault by the claimant's former solicitors, but no evidence or waiver of privilege was provided to support this assertion. The claimant had failed to comply with case management directions.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the second claim for lack of jurisdiction, refusing to extend time on just and equitable grounds. Despite the delay being only one day, the tribunal found that the claimant had failed to discharge the burden of providing an adequate explanation for the late filing. The unsupported assertion of solicitor fault was insufficient. The whistleblowing detriment claim from the first claim was withdrawn and dismissed, but other claims in the first claim remain live.

Practical note

Even a one-day delay in filing a tribunal claim can be fatal where the claimant fails to provide credible evidence explaining why time should be extended on just and equitable grounds.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.123Equality Act 2010 s.39Employment Rights Act 1996 s.47B

Case details

Case number
2204781/2021
Decision date
10 February 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
financial services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep