Claim dismissed for being out of time.  The claimant did have a serious health condition but at the time of the primary time limit the symptoms were not such to show she was debilitated and could not present the claim.

The claimant was employed by the respondent as a Night Duty Care Assistant from 2nd February 2023 until 29th February 2024. The claimant was dismissed.  The circumstances leading to the dismissal were contested between the parties but were not examined at this preliminary hearing relating to time limits.

As the claimant was dismissed on 29th February 2024 the time limit to lodge any claim would expire on 28th May 2024.  Alongside this, the respondent had reported the claimant to the Northern Ireland Social Care Council (NISCC).  The claimant engaged in that process with the NISCC.

The claimant submitted early conciliation notification on 20th May 2024 and the certificate was issued on 20th June 2024.  This allowed time to extend until 20th July 2024.  It was not submitted and it led to another early conciliation notification being submitted in April 2025 and the subsequent claims to the Tribunal being lodged on 23rd April 2025.  It was in March 2025 that the NISCC concluded that there was no prospect of finding any impaired fitness to practice against the claimant and her registration remained unaffected.

The issue for her claim was that it had been submitted well outside of the statutory time limit.  This led to a preliminary hearing and the claimant sought for time to be extended.

The claimant had serious health issues and this led to a diagnosis in July 2024 of Follicular Large B-Cell Lymphoma.  The claimant was told she had a 7cm mass obstructing her nasal passage, impairing her hearing and extending into her brain.  This led to chemotherapy in September 2024 and a second similar course of treatment in March/April 2025. The claimant outlined how she suffered from severe physical weakness and cognitive fatigue.  In total, the claimant outlined that the stress faced by defending her professional registration with the NISCC coupled with her health issues meant she was prevented from lodging the claims on time.  She also argued that as a litigant in person she felt it was unreasonable to apply strict application of the time limits to her and flexibility should be afforded to such people.

The respondent argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the claim that the claimant was so debilitated that she could not submit her claim within the primary time limit. This was primarily based upon the medical evidence from May/June 2024 when there were some symptoms not as debilitating as those when the claimant was undergoing chemotherapy.

The Tribunal concluded that it was feasible for the claimant to have lodged her claim within the primary time limit. The Tribunal did not want to diminish the claimant’s real and frightening health condition but the symptoms suffered at the time of the primary time limit were the same as when she was continuing to work and did not incapacitate her from caring for elderly patients.  Additionally, she had shown an ability to be involved in the proceedings by submitting an early conciliation notification in May 2024 and the Tribunal had no doubt that the LRA would have stressed the importance of the time limits.  As a result, it was found that the claims were submitted out of time and they were dismissed.

The Tribunal did specifically comment on the argument relating to a litigant in person.  The Tribunal accepted that there are greater challenges but there was no flexibility to be afforded to litigants in person beyond the statutory discretion allowed to the Tribunal.  Such discretion must be applied reasonably and equally to all.

Another case on time limits and in this situation there was a real and frightening health condition, diagnosis and treatment.  However, the Tribunal looked behind that to the index time and the symptoms faced by the claimant.  The symptoms were the same as when the claimant was continuing to work and she could still engage in the LRA early conciliation procedure.  This demonstrates that the Tribunal will not be swayed by just a diagnosis but it must be the actual effect on being able to present a claim within the statutory time limit.

NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website.