Claim submitted out of time and not just and equitable to extend time, even where the argument was raised that the claimant was waiting for an internal resolution.

The claimant had been employed by the respondent since May 2003. In February 2024 he applied for the post of Station Commander. He was successful but placed at a low level on the placement list meaning that it was harder for him to get a placement which suited him.  The claimant was placed 27 out of 35 on the merit list. The claimant requested reasonable adjustments through the process for his dyslexia. The claimant contended that it was the failure to implement the reasonable adjustment which led to the placement being so low.  The claimant was informed of the outcome on 4th July 2024.

Following the decision there was a lot of correspondence between the claimant and the respondent. This included Subject Access Requests relating to the process and interview stage. The claimant was informed in September 2024 by HR that they had found no evidence of unfair treatment and that the reasonable adjustments had been in place.  He raised this with the Head of Human Resources and in that investigation it was found that one of the reasonable adjustments had not been facilitated at the second stage of the process. However, it was found that it made no material change to the place on the placement list.  This continued with it being referred to a Ms Ramsey in the respondent with the claimant citing disability discrimination and/or a breach of European Law.

The claimant contacted the LRA on 2nd October 2024 and received an Early Reconciliation Certificate. On 3rd October the claimant contacted the Equality Commission and part of the advice received, in capital letters, referred to the strict statutory time limit. The claimant went back to the LRA and received a second certificate in December and then presented the claim to the Tribunal on 21st December 2024.  This meant the claim was some two months out of time.

The claimant argued that he had sought to resolve the matter internally and it was only when that failed that he brought the claim.  However, the Tribunal found that there were several opportunities to submit the claim at times when it was just and equitable.  For example, in September 2024 when he first had contact with the LRA and in October 2024 when he was informed of the omission relating to the reasonable adjustment through the process. As a result, it was held that the claim was submitted out of time and time could not be extended.

As an aside, the Tribunal noted that it was a ‘disturbing development’ that AI had been used to assist the claimant in preparing his witness statement.  They stated it ‘immediately cast a shadow over the validity of and weight to the witness statement.’ This is contrary to the suggestion made in Humphrey v Martin from February 2026 in which the use of AI in preparing the witness statement did not affect the weight to be attached to it.

The case demonstrates quite clearly that it is not sufficient to wait for internal resolution which may take a series of months and use that as a reason for why the claim was presented late.  The three months’ time limit still applies.  An issue arising for the Tribunal is the use of AI in relation to witness statements with two different views being held in two cases within a month of each other.  This is a matter that the Tribunal will need to address to ensure consistency – on the face of it – the use of AI should not, in itself, render the evidence of any less value.  However, it is the content of it and ensuring that it is checked by the witness that is important to ensure that it has cogency and weight to be attached.

NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website.