Mr G Chandler v The Chief Constable Of Kent Police: 2306189/2023
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2306189/2023
Between
Mr G ChandlerClaimantThe Chief Constable Of Kent PoliceRespondent
Before
Employment Judge Martin sitting aloneIn person for claimantMr A Hodge - Counsel for respondentDate 30 January 2026
JUDGMENT
[1]The judgment of the Tribunal is that the Claimant’s claims were brought out of time.[2]It is not just and equitable to extend time[3]The Claimant’s claim is struck out
REASONS
[1]This was a hearing to consider whether the Claimant’s claims were brought in time as set out in paragraphs 1 – 4 of the agreed list of issues and if not whether I should exercise my discretion to extend time on the basis it was just and equitable to do so. Both parties presented their submissions and I reserved judgment. JURISDICTION – RACE DISCRIMINATION – TIME LIMITS[1]Does the Employment Tribunal have jurisdiction to consider any of the Claimant’s allegations of race discrimination on the ground that the EC Certificate was issued on 8th July 2023 and the Claim Form was not presented to the Employment Tribunal until 7th November 2023?[2]If so, does the Employment Tribunal have jurisdiction to consider a number of the Claimant’s allegations of race discrimination on the ground that they were not presented to the Employment Tribunal within the period of three months (subject to EC extension) beginning with the date on which the said acts were done?[3]If not, can the Claimant rely on a continuing act of discrimination to confer jurisdiction on the Employment Tribunal?[4]If not, is it nonetheless just and equitable for the Employment Tribunal to consider those allegations of discrimination which are prima facie out of time? 2. I had before me a bundle of documents, the Respondent’s written submissions and the Claimant’s written submissions. During the hearing I asked the Claimant various questions. My deliberations include reviewing all documentation including the pleadings, and reviewing the relevant case law cited by the Respondent. 3. The Claimant’s claim is of race discrimination. He entered into ACAS early conciliation on 27 May 2023 and a certificate was issued on 8 July 2023. The Claimant presented his claim on 7 November 2023. 4. At the previous preliminary hearing, the parties agreed to complete a list of issues which was sent to me later and incorporated into my order. My order also said that the Claimant must attend today’s hearing ready to explain why he had not brought his claim earlier.
The law
[5]Employment Tribunal proceedings must be brought within three months (minus one day) of the act or acts of discrimination which the claim concerns (section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010) subject to an extension of time to allow for ACAS Early Conciliation. ACAS early conciliation must be started within three months of the acts complained of. Once the ACAS early conciliation certificate has been issued, a claimant has one month to present his or her claim. Just and equitable extensions of time[6]The employment tribunal has a discretion to extend the three month time limit in circumstances where it considers that it would be “just and equitable” to do so (section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010).[7]There is no presumption that a litigant that has missed the time limit, and relies on the just and equitable discretion, will be given such an extension unless a good reason is given.[8]In deciding whether it would be just and equitable to extend the time limit in a particular case the tribunal will consider various factors including the reasons for the delay, the actions of the parties and any prejudice which would be caused to the parties by the tribunal’s decision about extending time. Continuing acts[9]The continuing acts exception applies generally. It means that in cases where discriminatory conduct has occurred over a period of time 10. the three month time limit will only start to run from the end of the discriminatory conduct (s118(6)(a) and s123(3)(a)). Case law referred to by the Respondent[11]Robertson v Bexley Community Centre [2003] IRLR 434 which stated “When Tribunals consider their discretion to consider a claim out of time on just and equitable grounds there is no presumption that they should do so unless they can justify a failure to exercise the discretion. Quite the reverse. A tribunal cannot hear a complaint unless the applicant convinces it that it is just and equitable to extend time. So, the exercise of the discretion is the exception rather than the rule”.[12]Robinson v The Post Office [2000] IRLR 804 which emphasised that time limits in Employment Tribunals are generally strictly enforced[13]I was also referred to Harvey on Industrial Relations and Employment Law Division P1 – 1 – G 3. This emphasises that the onus is on the Claimant to persuade a tribunal that an extension should be granted; that the reasons for the delay are f paramount importance and must be considered; a litigant who provides no reasons for the delay or reasons that are disbelieved or not established by the evidence or provides reasons which are not considered to be good reasons will be refused an extension of time on a just and equitable basis; and that a tribunal must, if granting an extension of time needs to carefully explain the footing on which it has done so. Other case law considered[14]Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v Caston [2009] EWCA Civ 1298, [2010] IRLR 327[15]Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan UKEAT/0320/15[16]Hendricks v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2002] EWCA Civ 1686[17]Cast v Croydon College [1998] IRLR 318. The Parties submissions and conclusions[18]The Claimant was employed as a police officer. He brought claims of race discrimination. His particulars of claim were in narrative form and it was difficult to discern the dates that matters occurred, the nature of the allegations and what was background only. At a preliminary hearing on 1 June 2025 the parties agreed to produce an agreed list of issues to clarify matters. This was produced and was appended to my order. This is what the Claimant said his claims were and what I am basing my decision on together with the particulars of claim. The list of issues clarifies what the Claimant’s claim is about.[19]Both parties provided written submissions and spoke to them. I have not reproduced them but have commented on relevant parts below.[20]Mr Hodge helpfully set out a chronology of alleged detriments at paragraph 14 of his written submissions. I started the hearing by asking the Claimant if he agreed the dates as set out which he did. This was important as there is potentially a question relating to continuing acts of discrimination and the dates that time starts to run. The dates set out are (relating to paragraphs in the agreed list of issues): Issue 5 a 12 September 2022 to 19 September 2023 Issue 5 b 2021 to 8 February 2023 Issue 8 a 23 May 2014 Issue 8 b 23 May 2014 Issue 8 d 21 November 2014 Issue 8 claimant 12 September 2022 to 19 September 2023 Issue 8 f 2021 to 8 February 2023[21]The first thing I noticed is the long length of time (eight years) between the events in 2014 and the other matters complained of. This would indicate that during this eight-year period, there were no significant matters which the Claimant considered to be discriminatory. If there had been he would have included them. I asked whether the personnel dealing with matters in 2014 were the same as the personnel dealing with matters in 2022/2023. The Claimant did not answer this directly but said that “all relate to the Respondent, and the Respondent’s professional standards department. The matters in 2014 are in relation to complaints. The Deputy Chief Constable oversees this department, in charge of all complaints so all connected under one umbrella”.1[22]Mr Hodge helpfully set out the law in his submissions and relevant case law. The relevant case law which I considered in full is set out above. 1 Taken from my notes of evidence made during the hearing[23]Taking into account the relevant legislation as set out above, the last date that the Claimant should have presented his claim by was 9 August 2023. His claim was presented on 7 November 2023 approximately three months out of time. These dates are calculated by reference to the date of the Early Conciliation Certificate (8 July 2023). Therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the Claimant’s claim unless I exercise my discretion to extend time on the basis that it is just and equitable to do so.[24]It is for the Claimant to convince me that it is just and equitable to extend time. The Claimant submitted that it was disingenuous for the Respondent to rely on time points when it did not participate in the early conciliation process. This is not relevant to my decision or consideration. Time limits and jurisdiction are statutory concepts. There is no requirement for a respondent to participate or engage with early conciliation only that a prospective claimant starts the process and obtains a reference number.[25]The Claimant said he relied on internet AI advice. He set out in his submissions the advice he said he found. There is always a danger when using AI that the full picture is not revealed or that there are errors in the information found. There has been much publicity about this recently. He said he followed the information he found diligently but did not know about the time limits and the requirement to submit his claim within one month from the Early Conciliation Certificate. It is trite law that ignorance of the law is no defence in these circumstances.[26]The Claimant was a police officer and therefore should have appreciated the dangers of relying on AI and independently researching the legal requirements. The advice he sets out in his submissions includes a section “Legal Advice: Consider seeking advice from a solicitor or other legal professional if you're unsure about your rights or the process”. It appears that the Claimant did not seek advice although he references limited advice from the Police Federation in his submissions so presumably received some advice. This is not a legitimate reason for me to extend time for presentation of the claim.[27]The Claimant has not provided a reasonable explanation for the late presentation of his claims. In all the circumstances I find that the claims were presented out of time and that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear his claims and they are struck out.[28]Even if I had exercised my discretion to extend time for presentation of the claim, most of the allegations are clearly out of time. The allegations relating to 2014 are clearly very much out of time by many years. The Claimant tries to argue that there is a continuing act which would bring them in time and that there is ongoing discrimination. However as noted above there is an eight-year gap between 2014 and 2022/3. This is a considerable period of time and indicates that what happened in 2014 are isolated acts rather than continuing acts. Whilst in most cases, I would not decide the question of continuing acts until I had heard the evidence, normally at a final hearing, in this case given the dates involved I find myself able to do so.[29]Had I found the Tribunal had jurisdiction I would have found that the 2014 events being isolated acts were out of time and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time. The prejudice to the Respondent is obvious. The effect of the significant delay means that it would be extremely difficult if not impossible for the Respondent to adequately defend the allegations. Memories fade. Personnel may not still be employed. The forensic prejudice to the Respondent is enormous. A fair trial applies equally to a respondent as it does to a claimant. It would not be just and equitable to extend time in these circumstances. I can not say the same for the later events which as the Respondent concedes have the potential of being in time. Had I extended time, I would have allowed the events in 2022 and 2023 (issues 5(a) and 8(e) from the list of issues) to be allowed to go forward for hearing.[30]The Claimant argued that the discrimination is continuing and that this should have been taken into account when considering my discretion. I advised the Claimant that the matters we are looking at are those contained in his claim form. The Claimant accepted this.[31]In all the circumstances the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the Claimant’s claim as it is out of time and the Claimant’s claim is struck out. Approved by: Employment Judge Martin 30 January 2026 Sent to Parties. 16 February 2026 All judgments (apart from judgments under Rule 51) and any written reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimants and respondents. If a Tribunal hearing has been recorded, you may request a transcript of the recording. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, you will have to pay for it. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings and accompanying Guidance, which can be found at www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation-practice-directions/