Claimant v Tower Family Healthcare
Outcome
Individual claims
The whistleblowing detriment claims in Claim 1 were struck out as out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been lodged in time as the claimant was represented by a skilled advisor who should have checked the appropriate method for submission rather than assuming claims could be submitted by email following abolition of fees.
The tribunal exercised its discretion to extend time on a just and equitable basis for the disability discrimination claims in Claim 1, finding the one-day delay was minimal, the error was genuine and made innocently, and was rectified immediately. The claims will proceed to a final hearing.
Time was extended on a just and equitable basis for these claims in Claim 1. The tribunal considered the balance of prejudice favoured the claimant given the minimal delay and the fact the respondent would have to defend the additional allegations in Claim 2 in any event. These claims will proceed to final hearing.
Time was extended on a just and equitable basis for the failure to make reasonable adjustments claims in Claim 1, given the one-day delay could not affect the cogency of evidence and the error was rectified immediately upon discovery. These claims will proceed to final hearing.
The harassment claims in Claim 1 were allowed to proceed as time was extended on a just and equitable basis, except for all claims against the third respondent which were struck out. The tribunal found it not just and equitable to extend time against the third respondent given the significant difference between being a witness and respondent, and the allegations could still be pursued against the first respondent.
The victimisation claims in Claim 1 were allowed to proceed as time was extended on a just and equitable basis, except for all claims against the third respondent which were struck out as out of time. The tribunal found the balance of prejudice weighed in favour of the third respondent given the last act against him was 14 January 2020.
Facts
The claimant brought two claims against five respondents alleging whistleblowing detriments, disability discrimination, victimisation, harassment and failure to make reasonable adjustments. Claim 1 was submitted one day late due to her solicitor mistakenly submitting it by email rather than through the prescribed online portal or by post. The last alleged act against the third respondent occurred on 14 January 2020. Claim 2 repeated the allegations from Claim 1 and added further allegations following the claimant's retirement from the partnership on 18 March 2021.
Decision
The tribunal struck out all whistleblowing detriment claims in Claim 1 as it was reasonably practicable for them to be filed in time despite the solicitor's error. However, it extended time on a just and equitable basis for the Equality Act claims in Claim 1 given the minimal one-day delay and genuine error. All claims against the third respondent were struck out as out of time, with the tribunal finding it not just and equitable to extend time where the last act was seven months before the claim was filed.
Practical note
A solicitor's ignorance of the prescribed method for submitting tribunal claims will not excuse late filing of ERA claims under the reasonably practicable test, but may justify extending time for Equality Act claims where the delay is minimal and the error genuine.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2409592/2020
- Decision date
- 28 July 2024
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister