The respondent published a job advertisement on 21st May 2019 seeking an ‘Employment Lawyer’. One of the essential criteria was that the applicant had to be a qualified solicitor or barrister. The claimant applied for the role on 14th June, but was unsuccessful on the basis that he was not qualified as a solicitor or barrister. He was informed of this on 19th June. The claimant sought to demonstrate his applicability for the role by attaching copies of judgments he had been involved in as well as newspaper reports of cases in which he had represented claimants.

The claimant was informed that he was unsuccessful. Following this he sent an email on 18th July to the respondent stating that it may have been the fact that they did not want to consider anybody older. He also stated that the respondent’s website states they are keen to help people of faith and that the respondent may have been aware of the claimant’s case against the Bible College. The respondent replied merely stating that the claimant was unsuccessful as he failed to meet the essential criterion (i.e. solicitor/barrister qualification).

The claimant presented his claim on 22nd October 2019 and the respondent resisted the claim stating that it was out of time. The claimant contended that the discrimination on the basis of religious belief/political opinion had only ‘crystallised’ in his mind on 23rd July 2019 for the purposes of the statutory time limit. However, the Tribunal found that the key date for the alleged discrimination was 19th June 2019 (when the claimant was informed that he was unsuccessful) and therefore the claim was lodged over a month out of time.

The claimant sought to explain the failure through his belief that the time only started to run on 23rd July 2019, as well as the impact of health issues. The health issue was that he had a heart attack in August 2019, and was hospitalised. However, the hospital notes stated that no further tests or investigations were required and that he was safe to drive. Accordingly, it was held that the claimant did not discharge his duty to persuade the tribunal that it was just and equitable to extend the statutory time limit. As the claimant was a self-described ‘expert’ in the field he ought to have known that he had to bring his claim within three months. Accordingly, the case was dismissed.

Practical Lessons

This case demonstrates the way in which the Tribunal will examine the extension of time when it comes to discrimination cases. The ‘just and equitable’ aspect is wider than the ‘not reasonably practicable’ that is seen in unfair dismissal case.  However, as the claimant did outline that he had some expertise in this area it worked against him when he sought to have an extension of time. This is the same for those who have been able to rely upon legal advice and the claim is presented out of time. It is important for practitioners to ensure that time limits are complied with and for those acting for respondents to ensure that where a claim is out of time that an argument is made to have the case dismissed.

NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website:
http://www.employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/