Miss A Johnston v The Zoological Society of Wales (The Welsh Mountain Zoo): 6010695/2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant’s unfair dismissal complaint was not brought within the period of three months beginning with the effective date of termination of her employment, when it was reasonably practicable for the complaint to have been brought within that period. The complaint is therefore dismissed.[2]The Claimant’s complaints of sex discrimination were not brought within the period of three months beginning with the date of the latest act to which her complaints related, and it is not just and equitable to extend time. The complaints are therefore dismissed. Authorised for issue byREASONS
[1]In the Judgment, delivered orally at the conclusion of the hearing on 18 December 2025, I concluded that the Claimant's unfair dismissal complaint had not been brought within the stipulated time period and that it had been reasonably practicable for it to have been brought within that period. I further concluded that the Claimant's complaint of sex discrimination had not been brought within the period of three months beginning with the date of the latest act to which the complaint related, and it was not just and equitable to extend time. Both her complaints were therefore dismissed.[2]The Claimant subsequently requested written reasons for my Judgment, and they were sent to the parties on 5 February 2026 (“Reasons”). She subsequently, on 13 February 2026, submitted a document to the Tribunal. The document was headed "In the Employment Appeal Tribunal", and then stated, “Appeal against a Judgment of the Employment Tribunal". In the conclusion to the document, the Claimant then asserted that I erred in law in dismissing her claims on limitation grounds.[3]To that extent therefore, the document appeared to be an appeal against my Judgment, which would lie only to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. I noted however, that in her communication with the Tribunal in relation to the document, via the Tribunal's electronic portal, the communication to which the document was attached noted that the application was to, "Reconsider Case No: 6010695/2025 2 judgement". I also noted that much of the Claimant’s document could be read as a reconsideration application. I therefore treated the document as an application to reconsider my Judgment and Reasons. Issues and Law[4]Rule 68 provides that reconsideration of a judgment will take place where the Employment Tribunal considers that it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so.[5]Rule 69 provides that applications for reconsiderations of judgments should be presented in writing within 14 days of the date on which the written record of the judgment was sent to the parties, and should set out why reconsideration is necessary. In this case, the Claimant submitted her application within the stipulated time period, and I was satisfied that her explanation of why she considered reconsideration was necessary had been set out.[6]Rule 70(1) notes that the Tribunal must consider any application made under Rule 69, and Rule 70(2) notes that if the Tribunal considers that there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked then the application must be refused, and the Tribunal must inform the parties of the refusal. Alternatively, Rules 70(3) to (5) set out the process that is then to be followed for further consideration of the application.[7]In Outasight VB Ltd v Brown 2015 ICR D11, EAT, HHJ Eady QC (as she then was) indicated that the wording “necessary in the interests of justice” in Rule 701 allows employment tribunals a broad discretion to determine whether reconsideration of a judgment is appropriate in the circumstances. She confirmed that that discretion must be exercised judicially, “which means having regard not only to the interests of the party seeking the review or reconsideration, but also to the interests of the other party to the litigation and to the public interest requirement that there should, so far as possible, be finality of litigation”. The Application[8]The Claimant set out eight grounds for her application. They were: Ground 1 – Failure to properly apply the "just and equitable" test. Ground 2 – Misapplication of the legal test relating to mental health. Ground 3 – Improper rejection and characterisation of medical evidence. Ground 4 – Erroneous findings regarding credibility and "falsification". Ground 5 – Failure to consider the cumulative and evolving nature of the conduct. Ground 6 – Improper reliance on perceived procedural awareness. 1 Rule 70 in the previous iteration of the Rules was the same as the current Rule 68. Case No: 6010695/2025 3 Ground 7 – Failure to apply parity of scrutiny. Ground 8 – Perversity/decision outside the range of reasonable conclusions.Conclusions
[9]I considered each element of the Claimant’s application in turn. Ground 1[10]I outlined my assessment of the balance of prejudice in relation to the Claimant's discrimination complaint at paragraphs 58 to 64 of the Reasons, having already addressed the Claimant's mental health in relation to her unfair dismissal complaint at paragraphs 51 to 54. I am satisfied that I exercised my discretion appropriately. Ground 2[11]I did not proceed on the basis that, unless the Claimant was wholly incapable of functioning, her mental health could not justify an extension of time. As I indicated in the Reasons, my view was that the fact that the Claimant had been able to obtain, and then hold down, two jobs, i.e. to effectively work full time, during the relevant period, and to care for her children, indicated that, whatever mental health issues she was experiencing, they did not seem to have affected her ability to carry on with her life generally.[12]I considered that that would have included completing an Employment Tribunal Claim Form, i.e. that the Claimant’s mental health did not materially impair her ability to recognise, act upon, or pursue legal remedies. Indeed, she contacted ACAS on 9 February 2025, which indicated that she had recognised, and had been able to pursue, her legal remedies at that point. The contemporary evidence did not then suggest that the Claimant’s mental health prevented her from pursuing matters thereafter. Ground 3[13]I noted the medical evidence adduced in respect of the Claimant's mental health at paragraphs 34 to 38 of the Reasons. That noted that a diagnosis of anxiety and depression was only confirmed in June 2025, although the prescription of citalopram, an antidepressant, in March 2024 suggested that concerns over depression existed prior to that.[14]I did not, in any sense, reject or minimise that evidence; I took it at face value. I only observed that the GP letter was produced in August 2025, i.e. some time after the period at issue, and in circumstances where the Claimant had been told, at a prior preliminary hearing, that she would need to provide an explanation for her non-compliance with time limits. Even then, the letter simply stated that the Claimant's stress had affected her ability to deal with legal matters and to put in the Tribunal claim. It provided no explanation for that.[15]Ultimately, I did not reject or minimise the medical evidence, I just did not Case No: 6010695/2025 4 consider that it outweighed the evidence, in the form of the Claimant's apparent ability to function, in terms of work and her family life, from October 2024 onwards. Ground 4[16]I did not make any suggestions that the Claimant’s medical position was exaggerated or falsified; I simply recorded what the evidence indicated. Questions of “dishonesty” or “credibility” played no part in my decision-making. Ground 5[17]To an extent, I would consider that limitation is indeed a static issue, as it assesses compliance with the requirement to submit Employment Tribunal claims within a certain period, running from a specific date or dates. In this case therefore, I did assess the Claimant's ability to submit her Claim Form during the time period running from the date of termination of her employment in relation to the unfair dismissal complaint, and from the acts complained of in relation to the discrimination complaint. I then assessed the impact of the Claimant's health on her ability to have submitted her claims from those points on, taking into account all the evidence. Ground 6[18]I am satisfied that I correctly applied the legal tests relating to knowledge of the right to pursue Employment Tribunal claims. That related to the initial period in which the Claimant contended she was simply unaware of the existence of Employment Tribunals, which I considered to have been unreasonable.[19]However, my primary focus was that, even when the Claimant herself confirmed that she had that knowledge, she did nothing to pursue her claim until after time had elapsed. I then took into account the impact the Claimant's mental health conditions had on her ability to have submitted the claim in time. Ground 7[20]I do not see that any "parity of scrutiny" arises in relation to assessing compliance with time limits. That assessment purely focuses on the Claimant's actions or inactions. Ground 8[21]Any assertion that my decision was perverse is one that can only be addressed on appeal, although, for obvious reasons, I do not consider that it was.[22]Overall, having reviewed the Judgment in the context of the Claimant's reconsideration application, I did not consider that there was a reasonable prospect of the decision being varied or revoked, and I therefore refused the application. Case No: 6010695/2025 5 Authorised for issue by