Tribunal: No reasonable explanation for delay
A legal practice course (LPC) graduate who knew she had three months to issue an employment tribunal claim against a law firm where she worked has been refused an extension of time.
Employment Judge Tinnion in central London said Ms J Fawcett had passed an employment law module as part of her LPC.
She provided “no reasonable explanation” of why she only brought her claim against London litigation boutique Charles Lyndon in March 2024, nearly seven months after her six-month contract as an intern ended.
She had been dismissed and put on gardening leave in August 2023 until her contract came to an end the following month.
Ms Fawcett withdrew a claim for unfair dismissal, as she did not have two years of employment, but sought to claim constructive dismissal, direct sex discrimination, sexual harassment and disability discrimination.
As the claims were out of time, the question was whether it was just and equitable to extend time to bring them.
Judge Tinnion held emphatically that it was not. Ms Fawcett was an eye-witness to most, if not all, of the allegations of misconduct she made, he explained.
“She therefore knew those alleged events had taken place at the time. Given her legal knowledge, the claimant knew both during her employment and after it had ended that she could present a claim to an employment tribunal about those matters.
“The claimant told the tribunal she had been unable to obtain legal advice from a Citizens Advice Bureau after her employment ended.
“Even if that is right (no particulars of her efforts to obtain CAB advice were provided), it was unclear to the tribunal what practical benefit the claimant would have obtained from a CAB: she knew what had happened, she knew her legal rights under [Equality Act] 2010, she knew she could present a claim to an employment tribunal about those matters, and she knew the three-month time limit for presenting an ET1 claim.”
There was no medical evidence to support an extension, while even if she had autistic spectrum disorder – which Ms Fawcett had self-diagnosed – she had not explained why this had caused the failure.
Ms Fawcett pointed to problems she had been having with her neighbours, as well as harassment and bullying from her partner.
Judge Tinnion said the documents she presented about the neighbour dispute were “well-written, rational and entirely coherent” – if she could compose these documents at the time, “she likely also would have been able to compose and submit an ET1 in time”.
In any case, Ms Fawcett stopped living in the flat on 31 January and still she took several weeks to contact ACAS, obtain an early conciliation certificate, and then issue the claim.
He concluded: “The tribunal is satisfied that the claimant was fit and well enough to present a timely ET1 within three months of the date on which her employment terminated, and provided no reasonable explanation for why she did not do so.”
Leave a Comment