Mr M Rodrigues v Dnata Catering UK Ltd: 3311357/2024

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 3311357/2024

Between

Mr M RodriguesClaimant

Dnata Catering UK LtdRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Davidson

Mr E Nuttman (instructed by Solicitor) for respondent

Date 27 November 2025

JUDGMENT

The judgment of the Tribunal is as follows: The complaint of unfair dismissal was not presented within the applicable time limit. It was reasonably practicable to do so. The complaint of unfair dismissal is therefore dismissed. The complaint of victimisation was not presented within the applicable time limit. It is not just and equitable to extend the time limit. The claim is therefore dismissed.

REASONS

The claimant’s representative requested written reasons at the conclusion of the hearing. These are now provided. Unfair dismissal complaint

[1]A claim for unfair dismissal must be presented before the end of the period of three months beginning with the effective date of termination. It is agreed that the effective date of termination was 29 July 2024. ACAS Early Conciliation started on 29 July 2024 and ended on 2 August 2024. The last day for presenting the claim was therefore 1 November 2024. The claim was presented on 5 November 2024, four days out of time.

[2]The claimant applies for the tribunal to extend time. Under section 111(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal can extend time when it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented in time. The burden of proof is on the claimant.

[3]The relevant factors for the tribunal to take into account include the substantial cause of the claimant’s failure to comply with the time limit, whether there was a physical impediment, whether the claimant knew of their rights and whether the claimant had received advice.

[4]The time limits are strict and should be adhered to.

[5]The reasons put forward by the claimant in a witness statement submitted on 10 October 2025 were:a. He was suffering from depression and psychological distress (which he intended to support with medical evidence);

b. He had misunderstood the time limit calculation due to his mental health.

[6]In evidence before the tribunal, under cross examination, the claimant confirmed that he had not seen his GP or received any medical care. He self-medicated by seeing friends and family.

[7]Even if the claimant did experience stress after his dismissal, there is a difference between being stressed by his circumstances and having an illness or incapacity which prevented him from presenting the claim (Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser

UKEAT/0165/07

[8]I find that there were no physical impediments to the claimant presenting his claim in time. His ill-health is not documented because he sought no medical help. He has not provided any evidence to support the contention that his ill-health was so bad that he was unable to present a claim by way of witness statement or otherwise. I note that he was able to attend the appeal hearing and present his appeal.

[9]He had engaged with ACAS under the Early Conciliation requirements. It is the standard practice of ACAS to inform prospective claimants of time limits. I do not have direct evidence that the claimant received this advice but did not suggest otherwise, even when the respondent’s representative contended that this was the standard practice of ACAS.

[10]He confirmed that he attended the appeal hearing on 25 September 2024 and was aware that his appeal had been unsuccessful on that date. He expressed disappointment at the outcome. Pursuing internal processes does not generally mean that it was not reasonably practicable to present a claim but, in this case, the internal process had concluded several weeks before the expiry of the primary time limit.

[11]I also take note that the claimant had support from Mr N’Dow., Although Mr N’Dow does not appear to be a legal representative, he is someone who has supported numerous employees with tribunal claims and would be familiar with time limits.

[12]In conclusion, I find that the claimant has not satisfied me that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. The unfair dismissal complaint is therefore dismissed. Victimisation

[13]The test for extending time in discrimination and victimisation claims is whether it would be just and equitable to accept the claim out of time (Sectio 123(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010. This is a matter discretion for the tribunal.

[14]Although there is no formal burden of proof, as the claimant is applying to extend time, it is for him to argue that the extension is just and equitable.

[15]The tribunal can take into account anything it considers relevant including relative prejudice to each party and the length of and reasons for the delay and the merits of the claim.

[16]The tribunal must also have regard to the Overriding objective as set out in Rule 3 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. Although the claimant’s representative suggested that I should disregard the overriding objective because of the equity and justice for the claimant in having his case heard, even if presented out of time, I do not agree. I must therefore take account of proportionality and expense when exercising any power under the Tribunal Rules.

[17]For the reasons discussed in relation to the unfair dismissal complaint above, I am not satisfied that the claimant had any compelling reason for the late presentation of his claim which would give rise to a conclusion that it would be just and equitable to extend time.

[18]At a previous case management hearing on 24 September 2025 before EJ Leverton, there was a lengthy discussion about the victimisation claim. The claimant was told that there needed to be a protected act identified in order to pursue such a claim and that ‘protected act’ involved an allegation of a breach of the Equality Act 2010, such as an allegation of discrimination. The claimant has not identified any protected act within the meaning of section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 yet he declined to withdraw the victimisation claim at the hearing in September and again at today’s hearing.

[19]In the absence of an identified protected act, I find that the victimisation claim cannot succeed.

[20]I find that the prejudice to the respondent in having to answer a hopeless claim is greater than the prejudice to the claimant in not being able to pursue such a claim.

[21]I therefore do not consider that it would be just and equitable to extend the time for presentation of the victimisation claim, which is therefore dismissed. Approved by: Employment Judge Davidson