Ms N Owen v Cidari Multi Academy Trust: 6008802/2025

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 6008802/2025

Between

Ms N OwenClaimant

Cidari Multi Academy TrustRespondent

In person for claimant

Ms Rule Mullen (instructed by Solicitor) for respondent

Date 20 August 2025

JUDGMENT

[1]The complaint of unfair dismissal on grounds of pregnancy and maternity leave was not presented within the applicable time limit, but it was not reasonably practicable to do so. The claim was presented within a further reasonable period. The claim under section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 will therefore proceed.

[2]The claim of pregnancy and maternity discrimination under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 was not presented within the applicable time limit, but it is just and equitable to extend the time limit. The claim will therefore proceed. Background

[3]This hearing was listed following a Tribunal letter dated 2 May 2025 to consider whether the claimant had lodged her claim with the Employment Tribunal in time. The claimant’s employment with the respondent ended on 31 August 2024. The claimant did not bring a claim to the Employment Tribunal until 13 March 2025.

[4]The claimant had a baby on 4 March 2024. He was seriously ill after his birth and spent period of time in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit shortly after his birth. This caused the claimant to develop a mental health condition. The appellant necessitated input from specialist perinatal mental health services as anxiety was stopping the claimant from carrying out a number of activities of daily living including leaving her home. The claimant was having weekly counselling sessions in late 2024.

[5]The claimant explained that she had a “lot going on” after her contract ended. I accept that she was trying to address her mental health condition with the help of mental health services. The claimant contacted Ms Bolton, who had covered her maternity leave, on 5 March 2025. Ms Bolton confirmed she was still covering the claimant’s role. This prompted the claimant to look into bringing a claim to the Employment Tribunal.

[6]The claimant did not initiate early conciliation until 9 March 2025, by which time the ordinary time limit had expired on 30 November 2024. She did not bring her claim until 13 March 2025, the same date the early conciliation certificate was issued. The delay was not excessive.

[7]I asked Ms Rule Mullen if the respondent would experience any material prejudice if the time limit were to be extended for the claimant’s claims. Ms Rule Mullen confirmed that she could not identify any prejudice other than the lapse of four months to witnesses’s memories as to what occurred. The Law

[8]There are strict time limits involved in claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996 which makes it clear any such claims to an Employment Tribunal must be made within three months from the termination date

[9]When a claimant tries to excuse late presentation of his or her claim on the ground that it was not reasonably practical to present the claim within the time limit, three general rules apply: I. The three month rule is a high hurdle to overcome. II. What is reasonably practical is a question of fact and thus a matter for the Tribunal to decide. The test is empirical and involves no legal context. Practical common sense is the key and legalistic footnotes may have no better result than to introduce a lawyer’s complications into what should be a layman’s pristine province. III. The onus of proving that presentation in time was not reasonably practical rests on the Claimant. That imposes a duty on her to show precisely why it was that she did not present her complaint. If the Claimant fails to argue that it was not reasonably practical to present the claim in time the Tribunal will find that it was reasonably practical.

[10]Furthermore, even if a Claimant satisfies a Tribunal that presentation was not reasonably practical, that does not automatically decide the issue in her favour.

[11]The Tribunal must then go on to decide whether the claim was presented within such further period as the Tribunal considers reasonable.

[12]As to the meaning of reasonably practical, it does not mean reasonable which would be to favour employees and does not mean physically possible which would be to favour employers, but means something like reasonably feasible. The relevant test is not simply a matter at looking at what was possible, but to ask whether on the facts of the case as found, it was reasonable to expect that which was possible to have been done.

[13]Section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 provides that proceedings may not be brought after the end of the period of 3 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. Section 123(3) provides that conduct extending over a period is to be treated as done at the end of the period.

[14]Time limits are extended to take account of time spent in the early conciliation process with ACAS, if notification to ACAS is made within the normal time limit.

[15]The Tribunal has a wide discretion as to whether to extend time on just and equitable grounds, taking account of relevant factors.

[16]I bear in mind that the claimant has acted throughout in person and with very limited resources. The prejudice to the claimant in not being allowed to pursue this allegation is that she would not be able to seek redress for a possible meritorious claim. Conversely, there is no material prejudice caused to the respondent is allowing the claim to go forward. I consider that the witnesses memories will not be affected by the lapse of an additional four months. As a result, I am satisfied that it is just and equitable to extend time for the claim under the Equality Act. The complaint of unfair dismissal on grounds of pregnancy and maternity leave was not presented within the applicable time limit, but it was not reasonably practicable to do so. The claim was presented within a further reasonable period. In reaching my decision, I have noted that the appellant was very unwell during the period in which she should have brought her claim to the Employment Tribunal. She was receiving input from mental health services on a weekly basis as she was so debilitated by anxiety. The claimant has provided medical evidence to confirm the input she was receiving at the relevant time. She did not find out that someone was in her old position until 5 March 2025 and she contacted ACAS four days later. The claimant brought her claim to the Employment Tribunal the date she received her early conciliation certificate from ACAS.

[17]The complaint of unfair dismissal on grounds of pregnancy and maternity leave was not presented within the applicable time limit, but it was not reasonably practicable to do so. The claim was presented within a further reasonable period. The claim under section 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 will therefore proceed.

[18]The claim of pregnancy and maternity discrimination under section 18 of the Equality Act 2010 was not presented within the applicable time limit, but it is just and equitable to extend the time limit. The claim will therefore proceed. Judge Lloyd 20 August 2025 3 October 2025 ……...……………………..