Employment Judge R S DrakeNo appearance or attendance for claimantDate 24 July 2026
JUDGMENT
[1]The Tribunal finds that the Claimant’s claims under Sections 15, 21 and 26 of the Equality Act 2010 (“EqA”) were presented (on 6 October 2025) outside the time limit set out by Section 123(1) EqA and that the claims were not presented within such time as was just and equitable for the purposes of Section 123(2) EqA. Therefore, all the claims are struck out as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear them.[2]Further, the Tribunal finds that the Claimant has not established that he was disabled for the purposes of the definition of disability in Section 6 EqA at the relevant times and on that basis his claims also fail in any event as they are all dependent on establishing disability.[3]The listing of the Final Hearing to commence 7 December 2026 and continue for 3 days is therefore vacated.
REASONS
[4]The Claimant did not attend today. I am satisfied he was made aware of today’s hearing by paragraphs 1 and 2 of EJ Buckley’s Case Management Orders dated 18 March 2026 and that he was advised at the same time as the Respondents of the link to enable him access to the hearing today by video. No explanation has been received or any reason communicated for nonattendance nor any application supported by evidence filed for postponement.[5]Consequently I decided to take account of all the volume of materials and submissions lodged by the Claimant as written representations and to receive the Respondents’ evidence on Affirmation so as to enable me to determine the preliminary issues as defined by paragraph 2 of EJ Buckleys Orders. I noted that these issues are all potentially determinative of the entire proceedings. I concluded that in keeping with the overriding objective (Rule 3 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024) this was the best way to deal with the case justly, fairly and in proportion to its complexity and importance, avoiding delay and saving expense for all concerned.[6]I concluded that on the evidence, the claims were presented either at worst 11 or at best 9 days out of time. The Claimant cites 10 points upon which he relies to argue that time may be extended under Section 12392) EqA. He cites the principal reason being his mental health condition and its effect on his functioning between termination of employment and presentation of claims. I was not persuaded by this in the face of unchallenged and cogent testimony evidence from Mr Armitage of the Respondents that within days of leaving the Respondent’s employ, the Claimant had applied for, been interviewed for and secured employment with one of their clients called Moda Living Ltd. This fact did not bespeak lack of mental acuity to be able to present claims in time, and indeed quite the opposite. I found none of his other arguments persuasive let alone compelling. Consequently, I could not and did not find that he presented his claims within such time as I could find just and equitable to enable me to extend time to validate out of time claims.[7]On the subject of establishing disability as defined by Section 6 EqA, I find that the Claimant’s evidence is defective and is not probative of an impairment amounting to disability as defined by Section 6, which is crucial to founding claims of discrimination. My reasons are as follows:-7.1 The Claimant relies on evidence that in November 2017 he qualified for Disabled Students’ Allowance (“DSA”). This is an allowance to help students surmount adverse ill-health effects on their ability to study which a student with a physical or mental impairment might face. This definition does not match the definition of Disability in Section 6 EqA as that requires a Claimant to show that the ability to do everyday things (not learning and studying) is adversely affected by impairment. Thus, despite common misapprehension, eligibility for DSA is NOT definitive proof of disability for the purposes of the EqA.7.2 The only other piece of evidence relied upon by the Claimant is a mysterious document described as a “Consultation Notes” dated 22 May 2025 (thus after termination of employment and therefore not relevant) which is not signed by a medical practitioner and certainly not one whose qualifications and experience are adequately defined to demonstrate probative quality or effect. The bulk of the note is apparently generated by the Claimant himself as it notes what HE has expressed as his needs, and the rest is simply a list of recommendations from someone who is not even identified and has not even signed the document. Its overall probative quality is nil.7.3 I also note that EJ Buckley made an order at paragraph 22 of her Orders requiring the Claimant to disclose his GP records and provide an Impact Statement by 17 April 2026. He served and filed the Impact Statement but not the GP records and is therefore in breach of a Tribunal Order. This could make his claims liable to strike out under Rule 38(1)(c) of the ET Rules, but it has not been necessary for me to go that far.7.4 Lastly I noted that EJ Buckley envisaged the possibility at the hearing before her of the Claimant seeking to amend his claims to add one of victimisation under Section 27 EqA. He has not filed and served such an application and if her were now to do so, it could not be heard following dismissal of his claims and therefore this is a redundant matter.[8]For these Reasons, I find I have no alternative but to refuse to exercise my discretion to extend time to validate the claims, and to find that the Claimant has not established disability at the relevant times. Thus his claims must fail in their entirety.[9]I have made it clear that if either party seeks Full Written Reasons and I accede, such Full Reasons supersede these summary Reasons. Employment Judge R S Drake Signed 24 July 2026 Note Summary Reasons for the Judgment were given orally at the hearing; Summary or Full Written Reasons have not been provided. Parties may apply within 14 days of the Tribunal sending to them the above Judgment for Summary or Full Written Reasons.