Claimant v Teleperformance Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim for unlawful deduction of wages in respect of late payment of wages in October 2021 was presented substantially out of time (more than a year after the alleged deduction). The claimant failed to show it was not reasonably practicable to present the complaint within the statutory three-month time limit, and the claim was not presented within a reasonable period after the time limit expired. The tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the claim.
The claimant sought to amend to add multiple disability discrimination claims relating to events from July 2021 to June 2022. The application to amend was refused after weighing the balance of hardship. The proposed claims were vague and unspecified, significantly out of time, witnesses had moved on, and the claimant had difficulty articulating claims clearly despite multiple attempts. The prejudice to the respondent in defending old, vague claims outweighed the prejudice to the claimant.
The claimant sought to add a claim under section 15 Equality Act regarding her dismissal on 06 June 2022. The application to amend was refused as substantially out of time (approximately a year after dismissal), vague, and the balance of hardship favoured the respondent given difficulties with witness availability and the claimant's repeated non-compliance with case management orders.
Facts
The claimant worked for the respondent from 22 July 2021 to 06 June 2022. She filed an ET1 on 02 November 2022, initially complaining of late payment of wages in October 2021. Over the course of multiple preliminary hearings before different judges, she attempted to articulate additional claims including disability discrimination complaints relating to events throughout her employment and her dismissal. The claimant had significant difficulty expressing her claims clearly despite multiple case management orders. She did not attend the preliminary hearing on 21 August 2024 to determine her application to amend. The tribunal attempted to contact her but received no response.
Decision
The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend her claim to add discrimination and further wage claims. The amendment application was approximately a year out of time, the proposed claims were vague and unspecified, witnesses had moved on, and the claimant had repeatedly failed to comply with case management orders. The balance of hardship favoured the respondent. The tribunal also dismissed the original unlawful deduction of wages claim as presented substantially out of time, with the claimant failing to show it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time.
Practical note
Tribunals will refuse applications to amend where claims are substantially out of time, vague and lacking specificity despite multiple opportunities for clarification, and where the prejudice to the respondent in defending old claims with unavailable witnesses outweighs the prejudice to the claimant.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2501699/2022
- Decision date
- 21 August 2024
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Service
- 10 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No