A Hayward v Leeds Trinity University: 6012045/2024
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 6012045/2024
Between
A HaywardClaimantLeeds Trinity UniversityRespondent
Before
Employment Judge Ayre, sitting aloneIn person for claimantEmma Pringle (instructed by solicitor) for respondentDate 20 October 2025
JUDGMENT
The claim is out of time and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear it.
REASONS
[1]On 18 September 2024 the claimant issued a claim in the Employment Tribunal following a period of ACAS early conciliation that started on 15 April 2024 and ended on 24 May 2024.[2]On the claim form the claimant indicated that he wished to bring a claim of disability discrimination. He provided very little detail about his claim, the grounds of claim running to just five lines.[3]On 7 April 2025 a letter was sent to the parties informing them that the Tribunal would determine whether it has jurisdiction to hear the claim as it was presented late. The claimant was ordered to provide a typed statement setting out any reasons for the delay in submitting his claim within fourteen days. The claimant did not comply with that Order, and did not submit his statement until the afternoon of 2 July 2025.[4]A Preliminary Hearing took place on 3 July 2025. The claimant attended that hearing from the driver’s seat of a vehicle. The Record of that hearing records that the claimant told the Tribunal that “he had been “out and about” and had not got home in time to sit at a desk or in a quiet room to participate in the hearing.” The Employment Judge was not prepared to proceed with the hearing given the claimant’s location and the hearing was postponed to today. Today’s hearing[5]The issue to be considered at today’s hearing was whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claims as they have been presented outside of the primary time limit. The case was also listed to consider, if time was extended, the issues in the case, what further hearings and Case Management Orders are required, and whether the claimant should be ordered to pay the costs incurred by the respondent in respect of the last hearing. There was however only time today to deal with the time limit point[6]There was a bundle of documents running to 76 pages. I heard evidence from the claimant and submissions from both parties.[7]At the end of the hearing, the claimant said that he felt as though the respondent’s solicitor was discriminating against him because ”all she’s gone on about is time limits”. Having observed the manner in which Ms Pringle conducted the proceedings today, I have no criticism whatsoever to make of her. Ms Pringle behaved entirely appropriately at all times during the hearing, and was merely, in arguing that the claim is out of time, seeking to protect her client’s position.
Findings of fact
[8]The claimant was employed by the respondent from 6 September 2022 until 17 January 2024.[9]The claimant began early conciliation on 15 April 2024. The ACAS Early Conciliation Certificate states that ACAS issued the early conciliation certificate on 24 May 2024. The claimant issued his claim on 18 September 2024.[10]In his witness statement the claimant stated that the reasons he presented his claim late were that “I was going through a lot of personal problems that had a massive impact on my mental health, and I got my ACAS certificate late. Below is a list of things I was dealing with at the time. ADAH assessment…. Divorce Proceedings Child Care proceedings with my ex-wife regarding our children together Financial issues Facing homeless as I could no longer afford to my mortgage….”[11]In his evidence to the Tribunal the claimant said that he was not aware of the deadline for bringing Employment Tribunal proceedings and that he had no knowledge of employment law. The claimant also gave evidence however that he was part of the trade union at work, and that he had spoken to the trade union. He said that the trade union had told him he needed to contact ACAS. He also told the Tribunal that he had considered going to Tribunal within the first month after his employment ended, but did not do so because he didn’t have time.[12]I did not find the claimant’s evidence to be credible. For example, he told the Tribunal that he did not discuss the possibility of going to Tribunal with his trade union, but also that it was the trade union who had advised him to go to ACAS. He also said that he had been able to find ACAS’ telephone number, either through a ‘google’ search or because his trade union gave it to him. The claimant was able to carry out internet research and take steps to enforce his legal rights before the time limit expired.[13]The claimant also told the Tribunal that ACAS did not inform him about time limits. I do not find this evidence to be plausible as I take judicial notice of the fact that it is ACAS’ normal practice to advise anyone who contacts them of the time limits and that Employment Tribunal time limits are set out on the ACAS website. The claimant told the Tribunal that he had looked online and found out about time limits on or around 17 September 2024.[14]The date upon which the claimant contacted ACAS was 15 April 2024, the day before the deadline expired. This could have been a coincidence but I am not persuaded that it was. I find it more likely that when the claimant spoke to his trade union, the trade union advised him to contact ACAS within three months of the date of termination of his employment.[15]The claimant told the Tribunal that he did not receive the ACAS Certificate until 17 September, despite the fact that it is dated 24 May. He also told the Tribunal that, when he contacted ACAS again shortly before 17 September, ACAS told him that they had already issued the certificate in May. I find on balance that ACAS did issue the certificate on 24 May 2024 and that the claimant has forgotten receiving it or misplaced it. The claimant told the Tribunal during his evidence that he has a poor memory.[16]The claimant also told the Tribunal that he had ‘more pressing’ things to deal with than this claim, such as an assessment for ADHD. The documentary evidence in the bundle indicated that the claimant’s referral for an assessment began some time before his employment ended. On 12 December 2023 the claimant was sent forms to be completed and informed that a letter of referral was required from his GP, and the claimant forwarded these forms to the GP on 17 January 2024.[17]The claimant said that the ADHD assessment had involved him filling in 2 or 3 forms, each of which had taken an hour, and completing ‘about four’ online assessments. He could not recall when he did the assessments, other than ‘last year’ or when he got his diagnosis of ADHD.[18]In relation to his divorce, the claimant said that he and his wife had separated in August 2023, and that his divorce had ‘gone through’ in June 2025. He said that between August 2023 and June 2025 he had spent a day each week filling in forms for his divorce and child care proceedings. The claimant had a solicitor advising him in relation to his divorce and custody proceedings.[19]After his employment with the respondent terminated the claimant was out of work for a while, but he has found work.
The Law
[20]The time limit for bringing discrimination claims is set out in section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, with the relevant provisions being the following: “(1) ….proceedings on a complaint within section 120 may not be brought after the end of –(a) the period of 3 months starting with the date of the act to which the complaint relates, or…(b) such other period as the employment tribunal thinks just and equitable. …. (3) For the purposes of this section - (a) conduct extending over a period is to be treated as done at the end of the period; (b) failure to do something is to be treated as occurring when the person in question decided on it.(c) failure to do something is to be treated as occurring when the person in question decided on it.”[21]Tribunals have a wide discretion as to whether to extend time, in discrimination claims. There is however no principle or assumption that a Tribunal should exercise that discretion: Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link [2003] IRLR 434. The burden of proving that it would be just and equitable to extend time rests with the claimant.[22]More recently, in Jones v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2024] EWCA Civ 1568 the Court of Appeal found that an Employment Tribunal had acted perversely when it decided it would not be just and equitable to extend time in a race discrimination complaint. The Court of Appeal held that the Tribunal should have set out in its decision the extent of the claimant’s delay in issuing proceedings and the reasons for the delay. The Court also found that the Tribunal should have made findings about whether the delay had prejudiced the respondent and that a highly relevant factor was that the respondent had sought to hide information which could have caused the claimant to consider that he had a valid discrimination claim.[23]When Jones v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2024] EAT 2 was before the EAT, His Honour Judge Tayler commented that: “30. It remains a common practice for those who assert that the primary time limit should not be extended to rely on the comments of Auld LJ at paragraph 25 of Bexley Community Centre (t/a Leisure Link) v Robertson [2003] EWCA Civ 576, [2003] IRLR 434, that time limits in the Employment Tribunal are “exercised strictly” in employment cases and that a decision to extend time is the “exception rather than the rule” as if they were principles of law. Where these comments are referred to out of context, this practice should cease. Paragraph 25 must be seen in the context of paragraphs 23 and 24”.[24]That finding was not overturned on appeal.[25]Factors that are relevant when considering whether to extend time can include: 1. The length of and reasons for the delay in presenting the claim; 2. The extent to which the cogency of the evidence is likely to be affected by the delay; 3. The extent to which the respondent cooperated with any requests for information; 4. How quickly the claimant acted when he knew of the facts giving rise to the claim; and 5. The steps taken by the claimant to obtain professional advice once `he knew of the possibility of taking action.[26]Time limits for presenting claims are a jurisdictional issue (Rodgers v Bodfari (Transport) Ltd 1973 325 NIRC) and if a claim is out of time, the Tribunal must not hear it.[27]The ease with which claimants can inform themselves about time limits was a factor in Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd v Mr G Britton EA-2020-000972-OO in which The Honourable Mr Justice Cavanagh commented in the EAT that “it would be the work of a moment to ask somebody about time limits or to ask a search engine.”
Conclusions
[28]I have reached the following conclusions having considered carefully the evidence before me, the submissions of the parties and the relevant legal principles.[29]The length of the delay in this case is significant. The primary time limit, extended by ACAS early conciliation, expired on 24 June 2024. The claimant did not present his claim until 18 September, almost three months later.[30]The reasons given by the claimant for the delay are not, in my view, persuasive. I do not accept the claimant’s evidence that ACAS failed to issue the early conciliation certificate in May. Rather, I find that the certificate was issued in May and that the claimant forgot about it or misplaced it.[31]I do not accept that undergoing an ADHD assessment, which it appears would have taken up two working days of the claimant’s time at most, is sufficient reason for the claimant not presenting his claim on time. The claimant suggested that his ADHD caused him to be ‘time blind’. There was, however, no medical evidence to support this contention. The claimant was clearly able to take some steps to enforce his rights before the time limit expired, having spoken to his trade union and contacted ACAS to start early conciliation. He formed the intention to bring a claim well before the expiry of the primary limitation period.[32]I do not find that the fact that the claimant was involved in divorce and child care proceedings, however difficult they may have been, render it just and equitable to extend time. The claimant was clearly able to conduct legal proceedings, which were ongoing between January 2024 when the claimant was dismissed, and September 2024 when he presented his claim. The claimant said that he had the assistance of a solicitor during this period.[33]The claimant has also been able to find new employment.[34]This is not a case in which new facts have come to light which have caused the claimant to consider that he may have a claim. He has been aware of the matters giving rise to the claim since well before the expiry of the original time limit. Nor is this a case in which it can be said that the respondent has withheld information from the claimant or misled him as to time limits.[35]The claimant did act promptly and within the primary time limit by considering Employment Tribunal proceedings within a month of his employment terminating, and by speaking to his trade union and then starting early conciliation. He was clearly able to find information about time limits on the internet when he searched in September 2024, there is no good reason in my view why he could not have conducted this research sooner.[36]The cogency of the evidence in this claim will be affected by the delay. The claimant accepts that he has a poor memory, and it is likely that the respondent’s witnesses’ memories will also be impacted by the delay. It is now almost two years since the events about which the claimant complains took place. The respondent would be prejudiced if time were to be extended.[37]The claimant bears the burden of establishing that it would be just and equitable to extend time limits. He has not discharged that burden. I am not persuaded by the claimant’s explanation for why he did not put his claim in sooner.[38]In considering whether it would be just and equitable to extend time, I also take account of the merits of the claim. This is, on the face of it, a claim which does not have good prospects of success. The claim form is brief and lacking in detail, with the grounds of claim running to just five lines, in which general allegations were made. In contrast, the respondent has provided a detailed and credible explanation for the way in which it treated the claimant. It would not be just and equitable to extend time to allow the claimant to pursue a complaint which appears not to have good prospects of success, and to put the respondent to additional cost and time in defending such a claim. The balance of prejudice in this case favours refusing an extension of time.[39]For the above reasons I find that it would not be just and equitable to extend time. The claim is out of time and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear it.[40]The case will be listed for a Preliminary Hearing to consider the respondent’s application for costs in respect of the hearing on 3 July 2025.