Employment Judge Mr J S BurnsIn person for claimantNo appearance for respondentDate 18 February 2026
JUDGMENT
The claims are struck out
REASONS
[1]The Claimant claims unfair dismissal, arrear wages and sex discrimination (harassment during employment) arising from his claimed employment by the Respondent which he says started on 20/12/22 and ended on 16/2/2024. The primary limitation period would have expired on 15/5/2024.[2]He commenced ACAS Early Conciliation on 8 October 2024; ACAS issued the certificate on 19 November 2024. He presented his claim on 13/12/2024. The claims were thus brought nearly 7 months late.[3]The hearing today was arranged to consider whether the claims should be struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success because they were brought out of time.[4]The Claimant served a witness statement with exhibits attached which I have considered and he also provided some additional information to me orally.[5]The Claimants claimed reasons for not claiming in time (in italics) and my findings about them about these (in ordinary text) are as follows:[6]Physical injury (18 December 2023 assault) . There are two sick notes signing him off work for the period 19/12/23 to 4/7/24 because of pain/fracture in his hand. This he claims was an injury to his hand caused by his landlord (a third party) which however did not stop him carrying on working for the Respondent until 16/2/24, and starting work again in April 2024 and continuously thereafter for other employers (restaurants and Harrods).[7]Psychological trauma --there is one GP reference in the Claimant’s documents showing that he reported anxiety disorder in January 2024 (caused by the landlord assault - not by any claimed sex harassment or other treatment by the Respondent) and being referred to counselling, but there is no sick note signing him off for mental health issues and no statement or other doctors/counsellors evidence suggesting that he would have been incapacitated from issuing an ET claim at any time. The Bromley Well email referred to below implies that he was fit enough to do so in June 24.[8]Death of my father (10 September 2024). This is sad, but bereavement is part of life and the three-month time-limit applies to everyone, notwithstanding the hardships of the human condition.[9]Continuing threats - the Claimant claims that “On 19 February 2024, Mehmet sent me a threatening message. On 3 March 2024, I sent him a formal letter of demand). Payment was not made, and the threats continued. On 28 March 2024, Mehmet’s nephew went to my family’s home in Turkey and issued threats. At the time, my father was terminally ill with cancer, which traumatised my family further. This threat occurred after I had sent a formal letter of demand to Mehmet’s registered address. Fearing the official challenge, he sought to intimidate me by targeting my family abroad.” These claimed threats, on the Claimant’s case, did not persist beyond March 2024 or prevent him from discussing them with his counsellor in June 24. There is no evidence that he reported the claimed threats to the police (although he did report the claimed assault by the landlord to the police).[10]Professional advice (11 June 2024 Bromley Well email) - this email shows that the BW counselling service advised the Claimant then in writing to contact ACAS to assist with his wages claim, and provided him with the ACAS website link and telephone number. However, as stated above, he applied to ACAS only on 8/10/24, some four months later. Bromley Well also advised him to report his (sex) harassment complaints to the police but there is no evidence that he did so.[11]ACAS process (8 October – 19 November 2024) - this could not extend time as he applied long after the time limit had expired. Re Unfair Dismissal[12]The primary time limit in which to present a claim for unfair dismissal arising under Section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996 is set out in Section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996. Ordinarily, that would be “before the end of the period of three months beginning with the effective date of termination” (Section 111(2)(a) ERA 1996).[13]Alternatively, the claim must be presented to the Tribunal “within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of that period of three months” (Section 111(2)(b) ERA 1996).[14]Section 111(2A) qualifies that the time limit referred to above, is subject to any extensions of time afforded by Section 207B ERA 1996 (i.e. allowing for any period of ACAS Early Conciliation). Re Discrimination/Harassment[15]Section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 provides that ‘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.”[16]It is for the Claimant to satisfy the tribunal that it is just and equitable to extend the time limit and the tribunal has a wide discretion. There is no presumption that the Tribunal should exercise that discretion in favour of the claimant. It is the exception rather that the rule - see Robertson v Bexley Community Centre 2003 IRLR 434
Conclusion
[17]I am not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the Claimant to bring his claims for unfair dismissal and wages in time (ie by 15/4/2024) or that he brought those claims within a reasonable time thereafter. Notwithstanding his various problems, he was back in full-time work by April 2024. He also inexplicably waited another four months before contacting ACAS, despite having been advised to do so in June 24.[18]The Claimant has not shown that it would be just and equitable to extend time for his sex harassment claims. It is plain from his submissions today that his main dispute with the Respondent is over the claimed unpaid wages. Although he claims he received sexually harassing messages from the Respondent during employment, even if he did, he did not report them to the GP in January 2024 (despite consulting then about anxiety) and remained in employment with the Respondent until he left in February 2024 for other reasons (a claimed threat of violence made by the Respondent in his kebab shop). In any event, the Claimant has not provided an adequate explanation for the very long delay in bringing the claim.[19]Hence the claims are outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, have no reasonable prospect of success and must be struck out.