Claim for discrimination could not continue as it was brought out of time and he did not convince the Tribunal to extend time.

The claimant was employed by the respondent as a security/control room operative from March 1998 until his employment was terminated by reason of ill-health retirement in July 2024. The claimant had been absent from work since February 2022 prior to his termination. In January 2025 the claimant brought claims for sex, disability and religious belief discrimination.

The sex discrimination related to an allegation of sexual harassment which the claimant alleged took place in 2000 and 2015.  The disability discrimination related to a failure to be given lighter duty to accommodate his arthritis this was said to have occurred between 2017 until he left the workplace in 2022.  Finally, the religious belief discrimination was related to an allegation that Catholic employees were prioritised for overtime as well as that stating that lighter duties were given to a Catholic employee.  The claimant alleges this took place from 2017 until he left in 2022.  The issue was whether the Tribunal could hear these claims considering the time limits.

The Tribunal reminded itself of the decision of the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal in Fennell v University of Ulster which stated that the burden to exercise discretion to extend time is on the claimant, it is a question of fact for the Tribunal, the discretion to extend time is multifactorial and it is for the claimant to establish justification for the failure to submit the claim on time.  For the sex discrimination claim it was found to be at least 5 years out of time and in evidence the claimant made it clear that he was told by the union of time limits but did not present his claim on time. For the disability discrimination claim it was found to be at least two years out of time and the Tribunal found that the claimant had knowledge of a potential claim in 2017 but decided not to proceed with a claim then. Finally, in terms of the religious discrimination claim it was found to be at least two years and eleven months out of time.  The respondent gave evidence that of the thirteen employees who may have had involvement in the claim, nine had left and for two there are no records.

The claimant outlined some medical evidence relating to stress and anxiety but the Tribunal found that it did not prevent the claimant from working as door security during 2023.

Bearing in mind all of the considerations the Tribunal held that it would not be just and equitable to extend time.  The claimant did not convince the Tribunal that time should be extended.  The claimant had stated that he only sough assistance when viewing cases in the media such as the Post Office scandal, historical sexual abuse inquiry and ongoing issues with Harrods. This was insufficient reasoning in seeking to demonstrate to the Tribunal that they should use their discretion to extend time.

Another case in relation to the extension of time when it comes to a discrimination claim.  The importance as exemplified by the Tribunal’s judgment at various points is that it is for the claimant to convince the Tribunal that it would be just and equitable to extend time. Whilst it is not solely on the basis of the length of the delay it is a key aspect and in this situation the delay was prolonged.  As a result, the claim could not continue to a full hearing.

NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website.