Claimant v University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction. The claim related to alleged discriminatory acts between 3 March 2021 and 21 July 2021, making the last possible date of discrimination 21 July 2021. The claim was presented on 8 December 2023, 25 months out of time. Although the claimant suffered severe physical and mental health issues following a suicide attempt in July 2021, the tribunal was not satisfied that these conditions prevented him or his partner from presenting a claim throughout 2022 and much of 2023, particularly after they became aware of ACAS in April/May 2023 and contacted ACAS in July 2023. The tribunal found significant forensic prejudice to the respondent including faded memories, at least one alleged perpetrator no longer employed, lack of full particulars even at hearing, and absence of contemporaneous documentation. The balance of prejudice favoured the respondent and it was not just and equitable to extend time.
Facts
The claimant worked for the respondent NHS Trust between March and July 2021. He alleged race discrimination during that period. On 27 July 2021, six days after his last day at work, he suffered severe burns in a suicide attempt and was hospitalised for months. He suffered ongoing physical and mental health problems. In January 2023, he disclosed issues to his partner Mrs Reeya, who contacted the respondent. ACAS was contacted in July 2023 but the claim was not presented until December 2023, over two years out of time. The hearing was a preliminary hearing on jurisdiction and time limits.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction. Although sympathetic to the claimant's severe health difficulties, the tribunal was not satisfied it was just and equitable to extend time. While the claimant's condition explained delay during 2021 and possibly into 2022, there was insufficient explanation for the continued delay after early 2023 when he and his partner were actively engaging with the respondent and aware of tribunal process. The forensic prejudice to the respondent—including faded memories, lost witnesses, lack of full particulars, and absence of contemporaneous evidence—outweighed the prejudice to the claimant of losing his claim entirely.
Practical note
Even severe mental and physical health conditions following a traumatic event may not justify a just and equitable extension where there are substantial unexplained periods of delay after some recovery, particularly when combined with significant forensic prejudice to the respondent from a claim relating to events nearly four years in the past.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1308568/2023
- Decision date
- 4 February 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep