Time not extended for both unfair dismissal and discrimination claims with the Tribunal applying both tests.

The claimant commenced employment with the respondent in September 2019. The claimant was dismissed in June 2024.  This was on the basis of unauthorised absence from work, non-adherence to the respondent’s absence notification procedure and failure to engage with occupational health. The claimant was made aware of this by letter on 2nd July 2024. The claimant used the appeals process by email on 7th July 2024 and the appeal was rejected on 30th August 2024 retaining the original decision to dismiss on 28th June 2024.

The claimant presented his claim form on 20th January 2025. This was just less than 7 months beyond the effective date of termination. The claimant brought a claim for unfair dismissal but also brought a claim for discrimination relating to what he termed as systematic harassment, indirect religious discrimination and career stagnation due to exclusion from training and responsibilities. However, the role of the Tribunal was to determine whether time would be extended to allow the claims to proceed. Some of the allegations relating to discrimination date from February 2020.

In terms of the time limits it was found that the claimant had said he was seeking legal advice during his employment and following the dismissal he had sought advice from a friend (although the legal credentials of the friend were not known to the Tribunal).

In June 2024 the claimant suffered a regrettable physical assault requiring hospital treatment.  In one of the reports it is stated that the claimant was unable to focus on the legal matters but another report did state that he was not mentally ill and there was no mental illness following the assault.  The Tribunal referred to the claimant’s third level education and also noted that at the time of presenting the claim form and subsequently there was no evidence of any lack of concentration or articulation.

The time limit for the unfair dismissal case expired on 29th September 2024.  The claimant only contacted the LRA in November which was after the time limit had expired.  Bearing in mind that the claimant was intelligent and literate, had ready access to online information, no funding was required to instigate proceedings and that he had no physical or mental impairment which prevented him from lodging the claim it was held that time could not be extended. Additionally, for the discrimination claims it was held that it was not appropriate to extend time on the grounds of justice and equity.

This case demonstrates the different tests that are applied in extending time relating to unfair dismissal and discrimination.  In both the ‘not reasonably practicable’ and the ‘just and equitable’ tests it was held that time could not be extended but the Tribunal had to apply the facts of the case to the different tests before being able to reach those conclusions.  Even in the more discretionary test of just and equitable time could not be extended considering the claimant’s ability to be able to bring the case in time and the balance that has to be taken into account with the respondent’s ability to be able to defend the claims.

You can read the case in full here.