Claimant v Quality Life UK (Care Services) Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant did not submit her wrongful dismissal claim within the primary three-month time limit and that it was reasonably practicable for her to have done so given her intelligence, legal education (masters module in employment law), professional experience in litigation, and understanding of time limits. The tribunal also found she did not submit the claim within a reasonable further period. Application for extension under s7 Extension of Jurisdiction Order failed and the complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The claimant applied on 3 June 2025 to amend her claim to include this complaint. The tribunal granted the amendment and extended time under s123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 as just and equitable. The tribunal found the balance of prejudice favoured the claimant: she only became aware of this type of claim through specialist advice from Derbyshire Law Centre in May 2025, she had been confused about her employment status due to lack of clarity from the respondent, she suffered pain and drowsiness from medication, and allowing the claim would not cause material forensic prejudice to the respondent. The merits have not yet been determined.
Facts
The claimant was employed as a live-in carer from November 2023. She was in a road traffic collision on 15 January 2024, continued working for seven days, then went on sick leave. The respondent communicated unclearly about her employment status, suggesting she was being 'taken off payroll' on 23 February 2024. On 22 March 2024, when the claimant accessed the Bright Pay portal, she saw 'You have no employments'. She remained confused about her status and focused on benefits applications and a personal injury claim. She filed an employment claim on 20 March 2025 for wrongful dismissal, approximately one year late, and sought to amend to add a disability discrimination claim in June 2025 after receiving specialist advice.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the wrongful dismissal claim for lack of jurisdiction, finding it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to submit it in time given her legal knowledge and experience. However, the tribunal granted the claimant's application to amend to add a disability discrimination claim and extended time under the just and equitable test, finding the balance of prejudice favoured the claimant due to her lack of awareness of this type of claim, confusion over employment status caused by the respondent's unclear communication, and minimal forensic prejudice to the respondent.
Practical note
Even where a claimant has legal knowledge and misses the strict time limit for contract claims, tribunals may still grant extensions for discrimination claims under the more flexible just and equitable test, particularly where the claimant was unaware of the specific cause of action and where the respondent's own lack of clarity contributed to confusion about employment status.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6009717/2025
- Decision date
- 18 December 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Role
- Live In Carer
- Service
- 4 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No