D Welch v Brighton & Hove Bus and Coach Company Ltd: 2305118/2023
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2305118/2023
Between
Duncan WelchClaimantBrighton & Hove Bus and Coach Company LtdRespondentDate 10 August 2025
JUDGMENT
The claims for unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions from wages are struck out as having been presented out of time. I am not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to present them within the primary time limit nor that they were presented within a reasonable period thereafter. The claim for disability discrimination is struck out because it was presented far outside the primary time limit and I am not satisfied that it is just and equitable to extend time given the very substantial delay, the reasons advanced for that delay, and the prejudice to the Respondent and the overall interests of justice.
REASONS
[1]Mr Welch was employed by the Respondent as a bus driver from March 2019. The Respondent operates bus services in the Brighton and Hove area. Following an assault on Mr Welch at work in August 2022, he experienced work-related stress and was prescribed sertraline by his general practitioner. The Claimant describes ongoing mental health difficulties following this incident.[2]A capability process was commenced in relation to Mr Welch's attendance and performance. Following this process, he was dismissed on notice on 20 February 2023, with his employment ending on 14 May 2023. The Claimant states that he was dismissed whilst suffering from mental health difficulties arising from the workplace assault.[3]The Claimant contacted ACAS to commence early conciliation on 13 June 2023, within the primary limitation period. An Early Conciliation certificate (R193373/23/05) was issued on 15 June 2023. The Claimant presented his ET1 claim form on 24 September 2023.[4]At the preliminary hearing on 3 March 2025, there emerged a significant discrepancy regarding the disability relied upon for the Equality Act claim. The ET1 narrative referred to work-related stress following the August 2022 assault, but at the hearing the Claimant relied solely on hearing loss as his disability. The alleged discriminatory treatment was said to relate primarily to the COVID-19 furlough period during 2020-2021.[5]The Claimant secured alternative employment as a Class 2 driver in July 2023, shortly after receiving his early conciliation certificate and long after his employment with the Respondent was terminated. He experienced his first seizure in December 2023, well after the expiry of all relevant limitation periods and long after his employment with the Respondent was terminated. COMPLAINTS MADE IN THE CLAIM[6]The ET1 advances three distinct heads of claim against the Respondent. The first claim is for unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA), with the Claimant contending that his dismissal was procedurally and substantively unfair. He argues that the Respondent failed to follow a fair procedure and that dismissal was not within the range of reasonable responses available to the employer.[7]The second claim is for unlawful deductions from wages under the ERA. The Claimant alleges that the Respondent made unauthorised deductions from his wages during his employment, though the specific details of these alleged deductions were not fully particularised in the ET1.[8]The third claim is for disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA). As originally pleaded in the ET1, this claim was based on the Claimant's alleged disability of work-related stress said to arise following the workplace assault in August 2022. However, at the preliminary hearing, the Claimant's representative confirmed that the disability being relied upon was hearing loss, not stress-related illness.[9]The discrimination claim alleges both direct discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The alleged discriminatory treatment is said to relate principally to the furlough period during the COVID-19 pandemic, spanning 2020 to 2021. The Claimant contends that the Respondent's treatment of him during this period was because of his disability and that the Respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate his needs.[10]The Claimant seeks remedies including compensation for financial losses, injury to feelings, and interest. For the unfair dismissal claim, he seeks a basic award, compensatory award, and argues that any award should not be reduced for contributory conduct. The discrimination claim includes a claim for aggravated damages based on the alleged manner of the Respondent's conduct.[11]Time extensions are sought for all claims. The Claimant relies upon his mental health difficulties and personal circumstances following the workplace assault to explain why the claims were not presented within the primary limitation periods. He argues that his condition made it not reasonably practicable to present the ERA claims in time, and that it would be just and equitable to extend time for the EqA claim.[12]The Claimant's case is that his mental health condition, combined with confusion about limitation periods and the early conciliation process, provides sufficient justification for the late presentation of all claims. He submits that he should not be penalised for delays that were outside his control and attributable to his medical condition. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION Employment Rights Act claims (unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions)[13]Was it not reasonably practicable for the Claimant to present the ERA claims within the primary time limit of three months less one day from the effective date of termination, as adjusted by the early conciliation provisions under section 207B of the ERA?[14]If it was not reasonably practicable to present the claims within the primary time limit, were the claims then presented within a reasonable period thereafter once it became reasonably practicable to present them? Equality Act claim[15]Is it just and equitable to extend time for the Claimant's disability discrimination claim under section 123(1)(b) of the EqA, having regard to all the circumstances including the length of and reasons for the delay, the prejudice to each party, the cogency of the available evidence, and the overall interests of justice? Case management and disposal[16]In light of the above determinations, whether the claims should be struck out for want of jurisdiction under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024, either because the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear them or because they have no reasonable prospect of success on limitation grounds.[17]Whether it is necessary to list a further hearing to determine these preliminary issues, or whether they can fairly be determined on the papers following written representations from the parties.
THE HEARING
[18]A preliminary hearing took place on 3 March 2025 before me sitting alone to consider time limit issues as preliminary matters. The Claimant was represented by Mr S Fanning, Solicitor, and the Respondent was represented by Mr J Lomax, Solicitor. The Claimant attended the hearing in person and gave oral evidence under oath, answering questions from both his own representative and the Respondent's representative.[19]At the hearing, Mr Fanning for the Claimant confirmed that the disability being relied upon for the EqA claim was hearing loss, not the work-related stress referred to in the ET1. This represented a significant change from the pleaded case and required clarification of the factual basis for the discrimination allegations.[20]The Claimant gave evidence about his mental health difficulties following the workplace assault in August 2022, his treatment with medication, and the circumstances leading to the late presentation of his claims. He was questioned about his functioning during the relevant limitation periods and his understanding of the early conciliation process.[21]At the close of the hearing, having heard evidence and submissions from both parties, I indicated my provisional conclusions on the time limit issues. I issued a written notice to the parties indicating the Tribunal's provisional view that the claims should be dismissed as out of time and inviting written representations within 14 days from any party wishing to resist that provisional conclusion.[22]The Claimant filed written submissions dated 17 March 2025, accompanied by his GP medical records covering the period from 22 August 2022 to 5 March 2025. The Respondent did not file any further submissions and did not request a further hearing. Neither party requested a further oral hearing to address the time limit issues.[23]I am satisfied that it is fair and proportionate to determine the time limit issues on the basis of the evidence heard at the preliminary hearing, my contemporaneous notes of that hearing, and the written submissions and medical evidence subsequently filed by the Claimant. The 2024 Rules permit the Tribunal to make determinations following written notice and consideration of representations, and a further oral hearing is not required in the circumstances.
THE LAW
[24]The Tribunal must deal with cases fairly and justly in accordance with the overriding objective, including avoiding delay so far as compatible with proper consideration of the issues and saving expense. Under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024, the Tribunal may strike out all or part of a claim if it considers that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider it, or that it has no reasonable prospect of success. Employment Rights Act 1996 time limits[25]Under section 111(2) of the ERA, a complaint of unfair dismissal must be presented before the end of the period of three months beginning with the effective date of termination, or within such further period as the Tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of that period of three months.[26]Similar provisions apply to unlawful deductions claims under section 23 of the ERA. The test is whether it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the primary time limit, and if so, whether the claim was presented within a reasonable period thereafter.[27]Section 207B of the ERA provides for the early conciliation process administered by ACAS. Where early conciliation is commenced before the expiry of the primary time limit, the limitation period is extended. However, the early conciliation provisions do not revive a claim where early conciliation is initiated after the primary limitation period has already expired. Equality Act 2010 time limits[28]Under section 123(1) of the EqA, proceedings on a complaint may not be brought after the end of the period of three months starting with the date of the act to which the complaint relates, or such other period as the Employment Tribunal thinks just and equitable. The discretion to extend time under section 123(1)(b) is broad but should be exercised sparingly. Case law principles - Employment Rights Act[29]Schultz v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd [1999] ICR 1202 is the leading Court of Appeal authority on the "not reasonably practicable" test. The test is objective and demanding. Mental health conditions must substantially prevent claim presentation, not merely make it more difficult or burdensome. The question is whether the condition prevented the claimant from acting, not whether it made action more onerous.[30]Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd v Britton [2019] ICR 985 provides guidance on testing assertions of incapacity against evidence of contemporaneous functioning. Tribunals should scrutinise claimed incapacity by reference to the claimant's ability to manage other complex tasks during the relevant period. Evidence of capability for other demanding activities undermines assertions of incapacity to present employment tribunal claims.[31]London International College v Sen [1993] IRLR 333 establishes that once it becomes reasonably practicable to present a claim, it must be lodged within a reasonable period thereafter. This period is ordinarily measured in days or weeks, not months. The authorities emphasise that claimants cannot take unlimited time once the impediment to presentation has been removed.[32]Pearce v Bank of America Merrill Lynch UKEAT/0067/19/LA provides specific guidance on cases involving early conciliation and mental health issues. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld a decision where the Employment Tribunal accepted that ill-health meant it was not reasonably practicable to lodge within the primary period but dismissed the claim because it was not presented within a reasonable period thereafter. The EAT approved the Employment Tribunal's inference that legal advisers had mistakenly assumed a one-month extension period under section 207B when early conciliation was initiated after the primary limit had expired. The appeal failed because the further delay was attributable to a misunderstanding of the law rather than continuing incapacity. Case law principles - Equality Act 2010[33]Robertson v Bexley Community Centre [2003] EWCA Civ 576; [2003] IRLR 434 establishes that there is no presumption in favour of extending time under the just and equitable discretion. Extension of time is the exception rather than the rule. The Court of Appeal emphasised the public interest in the finality of litigation and the importance of adherence to statutory time limits.[34]Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust [2021] EWCA Civ 23 requires the Tribunal to have regard to all the circumstances of the case when exercising the just and equitable discretion. The length of the delay and the reasons for it are of particular importance, but no single factor is determinative. Even relatively short delays can impair the cogency of evidence and the fairness of the trial process.[35]Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board v Morgan [2018] EWCA Civ 640; [2018] ICR 1194 emphasises that very long delays require very strong justification. Tribunals must consider whether the explanations offered by claimants cover the entire period of delay, not just parts of it. The longer the delay, the stronger the justification required. Strike-out authorities[36]Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2007] EWCA Civ 330 confirms that strike-out under Rule 38 is appropriate where a claim faces an insurmountable jurisdictional obstacle, such as being clearly out of time with no realistic prospect of obtaining a time extension.[37]Balls v Downham Market High School [2011] IRLR 217 establishes that a claim can properly be struck out where legal analysis shows it cannot succeed, notwithstanding the existence of factual disputes about the underlying merits of the case. Analysis of Pearce v Bank of America Merrill Lynch[38]Mr Fanning for the Claimant stated that "The Judge will be familiar with the case of Pearce v Bank of America Merrill Lynch" but did not explain how this authority assisted the Claimant's case. I have therefore drawn reasonable inferences as to why this case was cited. It appears that Pearce was relied upon because it accepts that ill-health can make it not reasonably practicable to present claims in time, and because it addresses the interaction between mental health issues and the early conciliation timing provisions.[39]However, Pearce actually works against the Claimant on the facts of this case. The Employment Appeal Tribunal in Pearce upheld the dismissal of an out-of-time claim where, after the initial period of incapacity, the further delay was caused by legal misunderstanding about the early conciliation provisions rather than continuing incapacity. This mirrors the pattern in the present case: demonstrated capacity evidenced by timely early conciliation contact, followed by late presentation explained by misunderstanding rather than ongoing incapacity.[40]The Employment Appeal Tribunal in Pearce specifically endorsed the Employment Tribunal's focus on the period after it became practicable to act and approved the inference that delay was attributable to a mistaken assumption about the early conciliation extension provisions. Pearce therefore confirms that even where ill-health explains missing the primary time limit, a claim will still fail if the post-capacity delay exceeds a reasonable period and is attributable to procedural error rather than continuing incapacity. MATERIAL BEFORE ME[41]I had before me the ET1 claim form lodged on 24 September 2023, which set out the Claimant's three claims and included a brief narrative about the workplace assault in August 2022 and subsequent stress-related illness. The early conciliation certificate issued by ACAS on 15 June 2023 was also in evidence, confirming that early conciliation had been commenced on 13 June 2023.[42]I heard oral evidence from the Claimant at the preliminary hearing on 3 March 2025. My contemporaneous judicial notes record his acceptance that he contacted ACAS on 13 June 2023 and understood the need to do so. He confirmed that he had been "always aware" of the need to approach ACAS for early conciliation. He gave evidence that by July 2023 he had applied for and obtained alternative employment as a Class 2 driver with a different company.[43]Significantly, the Claimant's evidence at the hearing was that he was relying solely on hearing loss as his disability for the purposes of the EqA claim. This represented a departure from the ET1, which referred to work-related stress following the August 2022 assault. The Claimant linked the alleged discriminatory treatment to the furlough period during 2020-2021 rather than to events following the 2022 assault.[44]The Claimant's written submissions dated 17 March 2025 were filed in response to my notice inviting representations. These submissions acknowledged "misunderstanding the strict time limits" as a factor in the late presentation of claims. The submissions focused on the Claimant's mental health difficulties and argued that these provided justification for extending time.[45]Accompanying the written submissions were GP medical records covering the period from 22 August 2022 to 5 March 2025. These records showed evidence of the workplace assault on 23 August 2022 and subsequent medical treatment. The records documented fit notes for work-related stress across late 2022 and early 2023, and the prescription of sertraline with various dosage adjustments due to side effects. The records also showed the Claimant's first seizure on 6 December 2023, followed by neurological investigations, but this occurred well after all relevant limitation periods had expired.[46]Importantly, the medical records contained no medical opinion that the Claimant lacked capacity to give legal instructions or complete legal forms during the critical period of July to August 2023. The records showed ongoing medical appointments and engagement with healthcare services throughout the relevant period, suggesting retained capacity to manage complex personal affairs.[47]The Respondent did not file any additional evidence or submissions following the preliminary hearing and did not seek a further hearing to address the time limit issues. Mr Lomax for the Respondent had made submissions at the preliminary hearing opposing any extension of time and highlighting the substantial delays involved, particularly in relation to the EqA claim. FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPLICATION OF LAW Chronology and key dates[48]I find that the Claimant's employment with the Respondent ended on 14 May 2023 following his dismissal on notice on 20 February 2023. The Claimant commenced ACAS early conciliation on 13 June 2023, within the primary limitation period for his ERA claims. The early conciliation certificate was issued on 15 June 2023.[49]The parties proceeded on the basis that the early conciliation provisions resulted in an extended deadline of 15 August 2023 for the presentation of the ERA claims. The ET1 was presented on 24 September 2023, which was 40 days after this extended deadline. This 40-day delay was confirmed and not disputed during the hearing.[50]For the EqA claim, the alleged discriminatory treatment was said to conclude by around 30 September 2021 at the end of the furlough period. The ET1 was presented on 24 September 2023, which was seven hundred and twenty-four days later, representing a delay of nearly two years.[51]I find that the Claimant secured alternative employment as a Class 2 driver in July 2023, shortly after receiving his early conciliation certificate. His first seizure occurred in December 2023, well after all limitation periods had expired. The claimed impediment to presentation[52]The Claimant's case is that his mental health difficulties following the workplace assault in August 2022 created an impediment to presenting his claims in time. Specifically, he relies upon work-related stress, treatment with sertraline, and the side effects of medication as preventing him from understanding and complying with time limits.[53]I find that there is objective evidence of mental health difficulties in the form of GP records showing the prescription of sertraline from August 2022, fit notes for workrelated stress, and ongoing medical monitoring. However, I find that there is no objective evidence that these difficulties created an impediment to claim presentation during the critical periods.[54]For the ERA claims, the critical period is July to August 2023, particularly the weeks leading up to the 15 August 2023 deadline. I find that there is no medical evidence that the Claimant lacked capacity to give legal instructions or complete legal forms during this period. The medical records show continued engagement with healthcare services, suggesting retained ability to manage complex affairs.[55]For the EqA claim, the Claimant would need to show an impediment covering the period from October 2021 to September 2023. I find that there is no evidence of any impediment during the first 11 months of this period, as the workplace assault that triggered his mental health difficulties did not occur until August 2022. When any impediment was removed[56]Even if there had been a valid impediment to presentation, I find that any such impediment was demonstrably removed by June 2023 at the latest. This finding is based on the Claimant's own evidence and actions:[57]The Claimant successfully initiated early conciliation on 13 June 2023, demonstrating awareness of his employment rights and practical capacity to engage with official procedures. He confirmed that he had been "always aware" of the need to approach ACAS, undermining any suggestion of incapacity or lack of understanding.[58]By July 2023, the Claimant had sufficient organisation and stability to apply for and obtain alternative employment as a professional driver. This required him to manage job applications, attend interviews, undergo employment checks, and commence new employment arrangements. Such activities are at least as complex as instructing a solicitor to prepare an ET1 claim form or of preparing the ET1 himself, and he had contacted and engaged with ACAS in the middle of June 2023 too.[59]The Claimant continued to attend medical appointments and engage with healthcare providers throughout the relevant period, demonstrating retained capacity to manage his personal affairs and communicate about complex matters. Application of law to Employment Rights Act claims[60]The burden lies on the Claimant to satisfy the Tribunal that it was not reasonably practicable to present his claims within the primary time limit and, if so, that they were presented within a reasonable period thereafter once it became reasonably practicable to do so. Applying the statutory test under section 111(2) of the ERA and the guidance from Schultz v Esso Petroleum and Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd v Britton, I find that it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant to present his ERA claims within the extended time limit of 15 August 2023.[61]The evidence demonstrates that the Claimant had contemporaneous functioning during July and August 2023 that is inconsistent with an incapacity to complete or instruct a solicitor to complete a short ET1 claim form. His successful initiation of early conciliation, his ability to obtain alternative employment, and his continued engagement with medical services all point to retained capacity during the relevant period.[62]The mental health difficulties that the Claimant undoubtedly experienced following the workplace assault in August 2022 did not causally prevent him from lodging his claims by 15 August 2023. Following the guidance in Cygnet Behavioural Health, I find that his ability to manage other complex tasks during this period undermines any assertion that he was incapable of presenting his employment tribunal claims.[63]Even if I were wrong about the reasonably practicable test, I would find that the claims were not presented within a reasonable period thereafter. Any impediment to presentation had been removed by June 2023, yet the claims were not presented until 24 September 2023, representing a delay of over three months after capacity was restored.[64]The 40-day delay from 15 August to 24 September 2023 was explained by the Claimant's misunderstanding of the early conciliation provisions and his focus on other priorities. Following the guidance in London International College v Sen and Pearce v Bank of America Merrill Lynch, such explanations do not satisfy the "reasonable period thereafter" test.[65]Pearce is particularly relevant because it establishes that a misreading of the early conciliation extension provisions cannot convert a legally available period into a reasonable grace period. The Employment Appeal Tribunal approved the inference that final periods of delay may be attributable to legal error rather than incapacity, and that such errors are fatal to the "reasonable period thereafter" limb of the test.[66]I therefore find that both the unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions claims under the ERA are out of time and no statutory extension is available. Disability inconsistency issue[67]I find that there is a significant and problematic inconsistency between the disability as pleaded in the ET1 and the disability relied upon at the hearing. The ET1 refers to workrelated stress following the August 2022 assault, while at the hearing the Claimant relied solely on hearing loss as his disability.[68]This inconsistency complicates both the identification of the alleged disability and the scope of the acts complained of. It would require the Respondent to defend allegations relating to two entirely different conditions using historical records and witness evidence from 2020-2021. The conditions would involve different reasonable adjustment considerations, different occupational health assessments, and different policy frameworks. Application of law to Equality Act claim[69]The burden lies on the Claimant to satisfy the Tribunal that it is just and equitable to extend time under section 123(1)(b) of the EqA. In exercising this discretion, I must consider all the circumstances of the case, with particular regard to the length of delay, the reasons for delay, prejudice to both parties, and the cogency of evidence as identified in Adedeji.[70]The delay in this case is exceptional in length. At seven hundred and twenty-four days, it far exceeds the generous extensions that have been granted in reported cases. Following the guidance in Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board v Morgan, such very long delays require very strong justification.[71]I find that there is no coherent, causative explanation for the entire period of delay. The medical evidence does not address the Claimant's capacity over the whole period from October 2021 to September 2023. Significantly, the first 11 months of delay (from October 2021 to August 2022) precede the workplace assault that triggered the Claimant's mental health difficulties. No explanation has been provided for this substantial initial period of delay.[72]Even for the later period, once the Claimant had demonstrated sufficient stability to initiate early conciliation in June 2023 and obtain employment in July 2023, there is no satisfactory explanation for why he did not act promptly to present his discrimination claim. The seizure relied upon occurred in December 2023, well after the claims were presented.[73]I take prejudice into account as one of the relevant circumstances under section 123(1)(b), recognising that this is a key factor identified in the authorities including Robertson and Adedeji. I find that there would be substantial prejudice to the Respondent and to the cogency of evidence if time were extended. Following the guidance in Adedeji, even short delays can impair evidence cogency, and the effect is markedly greater with a delay of this magnitude. Corporate email retention policies typically operate on 12-24 month cycles, meaning that emails from 2020-2021 are likely to have been automatically deleted. CCTV and security recordings from that period will certainly be unavailable. Informal notes and meeting records are unlikely to have been retained over such an extended period.[74]The length of delay also affects witness evidence. Staff turnover over nearly two years means that key individuals may have left the organisation or changed roles, making them more difficult to trace. Those witnesses who remain will have significantly impaired recollections of specific events and conversations from 2020-2021. The task of preparing a fair defence becomes materially more difficult as time passes.[75]The disability inconsistency identified above compounds this prejudice. The Respondent would need to reconstruct separate policy frameworks, occupational health records, and reasonable adjustment considerations for two different conditions from over two years ago. This places a double investigative burden on the Respondent and significantly increases the cost and complexity of defending the claim.[76]Weighing all these factors against the Claimant's personal circumstances, and applying the guidance from Robertson v Bexley Community Centre that extension is the exception rather than the rule, I find that it would not be just and equitable to extend time for the EqA claim. The combination of very long delay, weak causal explanation covering only part of the delay period, and substantial prejudice to fair trial means that the public interest in finality outweighs the Claimant's interest in pursuing a stale claim. Strike-out decision[77]These conclusions mean that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine any of the claims on their merits. Following the guidance in Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust, strike-out under Rule 38 is appropriate where claims face insurmountable jurisdictional obstacles due to time limits.[78]The Claimant has been given a fair opportunity to address the time limit issues through the preliminary hearing process and the subsequent written representations procedure. No further hearing is required to dispose of the matter justly and proportionately.
CONCLUSION
[79]I have carefully considered all the evidence and submissions before me, including the Claimant's oral evidence, his written submissions, and the medical records covering the relevant period. While I accept that the Claimant experienced genuine mental health difficulties following the workplace assault in August 2022, these difficulties do not provide a sufficient legal basis for extending time for any of his claims.[80]For the ERA claims, the evidence demonstrates that it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant to present his claims within the extended time limit of 15 August 2023. His ability to initiate early conciliation timeously, to secure alternative employment in July 2023, and to manage his medical care all point to retained capacity during the relevant period. Any impediment to presentation had been removed by June 2023, yet the claims were not presented until over three months later. The 40-day delay beyond the deadline is explained by procedural misunderstanding rather than continuing incapacity, which following Pearce v Bank of America Merrill Lynch is fatal to both limbs of the statutory test.[81]For the EqA claim, the delay of seven hundred and twenty-four days is exceptional and requires very strong justification under the authorities. The reasons advanced do not explain the entire period of delay and do not provide a causative link between the Claimant's difficulties and his failure to act during the many months when he was demonstrably capable of managing his affairs. The substantial prejudice to the Respondent, exacerbated by the inconsistency in the pleaded disability, weighs heavily against extension.[82]The public interest in the finality of litigation, emphasised in Robertson v Bexley Community Centre, supports adherence to statutory time limits except in clear cases where justice demands otherwise. This is not such a case. While I have sympathy for the Claimant's personal difficulties, these cannot overcome the jurisdictional barriers created by the late presentation of his claims.[83]All three claims therefore fall to be struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024 for want of jurisdiction. The Tribunal has no power to determine the merits of claims that are presented outside the statutory time limits without valid grounds for extension.[84]I am satisfied that this determination can fairly be made without a further hearing, given that both parties have had adequate opportunity to address the time limit issues and neither has requested further oral submissions. The overriding objective supports bringing these proceedings to a close without further delay or expense, given the clear jurisdictional failures that prevent the claims from proceeding. Procedural note[85]After the preliminary hearing on 3 March 2025, I sent a written notice indicating the Tribunal's provisional view that the claims should be dismissed as out of time and inviting written representations within 14 days. This procedure accords with the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024. The Claimant filed comprehensive written submissions on 17 March 2025 together with supporting medical evidence. No party requested a further hearing.[86]This reserved judgment is dated 10 August 2025. The file had not been referred back to me after receipt of the Claimant's representations. I identified the outstanding matter whilst reviewing my hearing notes on that date and issue this judgment accordingly. The administrative delay does not affect the substance of the judgment, as all parties have had a fair opportunity to make representations and the legal analysis remains the same. APPROVED Judge M Aspinall 10th August 2025