Claimant v Capital City College Group
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for claimant to present her claim on time. Claimant knew the time limits, had union advice and support, was able to prepare a 10-page grievance, and could have contacted ACAS within the three-month time limit. Claimant's health conditions did not prevent her from commencing ACAS early conciliation on time. Therefore tribunal has no jurisdiction and claim struck out.
Claims related to period September 2021 to June 2023. Claim presented 19 August 2024, approximately 11 months out of time. Tribunal found no good explanation for delay and that overall prejudice to respondent outweighed prejudice to claimant. Not just and equitable to extend time, therefore claim struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims related to period September 2021 to June 2023. Claim presented 19 August 2024, approximately 11 months out of time. Tribunal found no good explanation for delay and that overall prejudice to respondent outweighed prejudice to claimant. Not just and equitable to extend time, therefore claim struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims related to period September 2021 to June 2023. Claim presented 19 August 2024, approximately 11 months out of time. Tribunal found no good explanation for delay and that overall prejudice to respondent outweighed prejudice to claimant. Not just and equitable to extend time, therefore claim struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims related to period September 2021 to June 2023. Claim presented 19 August 2024, approximately 11 months out of time. Tribunal found no good explanation for delay and that overall prejudice to respondent outweighed prejudice to claimant. Not just and equitable to extend time, therefore claim struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims related to period September 2021 to June 2023, alleging failure to implement occupational health recommendations. Claim presented 19 August 2024, approximately 11 months out of time. Tribunal found no good explanation for delay and that overall prejudice to respondent outweighed prejudice to claimant. Not just and equitable to extend time, therefore claim struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
Facts
Claimant was employed by respondent from August 2022 to March 2024, when dismissed following a stage 3 sickness outcome. She had been off sick since June 2023. Claimant alleged disability discrimination, sex and race discrimination, and failure to make reasonable adjustments relating to attendance management procedures between September 2021 and June 2023. She submitted a grievance on 5 March 2024 and waited for the outcome before commencing ACAS early conciliation on 15 July 2024, and presenting her claim on 19 August 2024.
Decision
All claims struck out as time-barred. Unfair dismissal claim struck out because it was reasonably practicable to present on time; claimant knew the time limits, had union support, and her health conditions did not prevent her from contacting ACAS on time. Discrimination claims struck out as not just and equitable to extend time; delay of 11 months was significant, claimant had no good explanation, and prejudice to respondent in defending stale claims from 2021-2023 outweighed prejudice to claimant.
Practical note
Claimants with health conditions who know the time limits and have union support are expected to act within the statutory time limits; waiting for a grievance outcome is not a good reason for delay when the claimant understood the obligation to contact ACAS within three months.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6008931/2024
- Decision date
- 10 February 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No