Claimant v ASOS.com Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was presented more than two years out of time. The tribunal found the claimant failed to establish it was not reasonably practicable to bring the claim within the primary limitation period. The claimant knew she could bring a claim, and her mental health did not make it impracticable. Even if it had been impracticable, the claim was not brought within such further time as was reasonable.
The claim was presented more than two years out of time. The tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. The claimant chose not to bring her claim but changed her mind, and her assertion that mental health inhibited her was not supported by medical evidence and was inconsistent with her ability to work throughout the period.
The claim was presented more than two years out of time. The tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. The claimant had the capacity to bring proceedings but chose not to do so. There was considerable delay, and the respondent had not contributed to any delay by its actions.
Facts
The claimant's employment with ASOS.com ended on 17 January 2022. She did not bring claims of unfair dismissal and direct discrimination (race and religion) until 20 March 2024, more than two years out of time. The claimant cited anxiety, depression, lack of legal knowledge, intimidation, personal difficulties as a single mother, and being triggered by a February 2024 conversation about alleged ongoing discrimination at ASOS. She had worked continuously in four different jobs since leaving ASOS, at times holding two jobs simultaneously.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims as out of time. For unfair dismissal, the claimant failed to show it was not reasonably practicable to bring the claim in time, and even if it had been impracticable, the claim was not brought within a reasonable further period. For discrimination claims, it was not just and equitable to extend time given the claimant chose not to bring her claim, her mental health arguments were unsupported by evidence and inconsistent with her ability to work, and there was considerable unexplained delay.
Practical note
A claimant's subjective reasons for delay (anxiety, intimidation, lack of knowledge) will not excuse a two-year delay where they demonstrate capacity to work throughout and fail to provide medical evidence supporting their assertions of incapacity.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2216940/2024
- Decision date
- 7 January 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- ASOS.com Limited
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No