Claimant v The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland
Outcome
Individual claims
At the outset of the hearing, the claimant's representative withdrew the race discrimination complaints in the presence of the claimant. The respondent applied for dismissal and the tribunal dismissed the race discrimination claims.
At the outset of the hearing, the claimant's representative withdrew the age discrimination complaints in the presence of the claimant. The respondent applied for dismissal and the tribunal dismissed the age discrimination claims.
The tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction due to the claim being presented out of time. The acts complained of occurred on 3 and 10 August 2023, meaning the time limits expired on 2 and 9 November 2023 respectively. The claim was filed on 24 November 2023, 14 days late. The tribunal declined to extend time on just and equitable grounds because the claimant's ignorance of the correct time limit was not reasonable—he had access to internet resources and could have checked the ACAS or ET websites to confirm the position. There was no medical evidence that his disability prevented him from filing in time.
Facts
The claimant was a police officer with over 22 years' service who suffered from a disability (Allodynia/Fibromyalgia causing chronic pain). He applied for early retirement in April 2023 but in late July 2023 sought to withdraw the application. The respondent refused on 3 August 2023 and refused his appeal on 10 August 2023. The claimant believed the respondent discriminated against him by failing to make reasonable adjustments to allow him to rescind his retirement request. He retired on 24 August 2023. He contacted ACAS on 15 August 2023 but mistakenly believed the 3-month time limit ran from his retirement date, so did not file his ET1 until 24 November 2023.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. Race and age discrimination claims were withdrawn at the hearing. The disability discrimination claim (failure to make reasonable adjustments) was struck out for being presented 14 days out of time. The tribunal declined to extend time on just and equitable grounds because the claimant's ignorance of the correct time limit was not reasonable—he had access to ACAS and ET websites and could have verified the position but chose not to, relying instead on a mistaken impression from a phone call.
Practical note
A claimant's mistaken belief about when time limits begin to run, even if arising from a conversation with ACAS, will not justify a just and equitable extension where the claimant had ready access to authoritative online resources (ACAS/ET websites) and could reasonably have checked the correct position.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8000617/2023
- Decision date
- 29 April 2024
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Police Officer
- Service
- 22 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep