Claimant v The Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Association of Taxation Technicians
Outcome
Individual claims
The Tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim as it was presented out of time, and it was not just and equitable to extend time under S123(1)(b) EQA. Additionally, the claim would have been struck out for non-compliance with Tribunal Orders under Rule 38(1)(c).
The Tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim as it was presented out of time, and it was not just and equitable to extend time under S123(1)(b) EQA. Additionally, the claim would have been struck out for non-compliance with Tribunal Orders under Rule 38(1)(c).
Discrimination arising from disability claim under S15 EQA was struck out on jurisdictional grounds (time limits) and would also have been struck out for non-compliance with Tribunal Orders under Rule 38(1)(c).
The Tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim under S20, 21 and 39 EQA as it was presented out of time, and it was not just and equitable to extend time. Additionally, the claim would have been struck out for non-compliance with Tribunal Orders under Rule 38(1)(c).
The Tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim as it was presented out of time, and it was not just and equitable to extend time under S123(1)(b) EQA. Additionally, the claim would have been struck out for non-compliance with Tribunal Orders under Rule 38(1)(c).
The Tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction to hear the victimisation claim under S27 EQA as it was presented out of time, and it was not just and equitable to extend time. Additionally, the claim would have been struck out for non-compliance with Tribunal Orders under Rule 38(1)(c).
Facts
The claimant, Ms M-E Hurley, brought multiple discrimination claims against the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Association of Taxation Technicians, including direct race and disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, indirect sex discrimination, and victimisation. The claimant appeared in person at a preliminary hearing. The respondent argued the claims were out of time and the claimant had failed to comply with tribunal orders.
Decision
Employment Judge Nicolle struck out all claims on the basis that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear them as they were presented outside the statutory time limits, and it was not just and equitable to extend time under s.123(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010. The judge also determined that even if jurisdiction had existed, the claims would have been struck out for non-compliance with tribunal orders under Rule 38(1)(c), though not for failure to actively pursue under Rule 38(1)(d).
Practical note
Unrepresented claimants must comply with tribunal case management orders and strict time limits; failure to do so can result in claims being struck out even before substantive issues are considered, and tribunals will not always find it just and equitable to extend time.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2214563/2023
- Decision date
- 17 January 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No