Employment tribunal and court judgments | September 2025

At a preliminary hearing for a claim of disability discrimination, a Judge determined that the Claimant had not been disabled during the relevant period (which ran from the first allegation of discrimination by the Claimant through to her dismissal) – because the effects of the impairments had not lasted 12 months or more and were not likely to do so or to reoccur. They were therefore not long term meaning the Claimant did not meet the definition of being disabled under the Equality Act 2020.

The Claimant appealed this, alleging that the Judge erred in law by failing to identify the specific allegations of disability discrimination, and relied on Cox v Adecco Group UK and Ireland and others [2021] (a whistleblowing claim in which the EAT ruled the Tribunal had erred by striking it out at preliminary hearing without first identifying the relevant issues).

The Employment Appeal Tribunal in the case rejected the idea of drawing parallels between both cases, on the basis that whistleblowing cases like the one in Cox are “multi-faceted” and require deeper evaluation before a tribunal can strike it out. The judge instead emphasised that the case at hand was focused on a much simpler issue: determining the relevant time period for assessing whether the claimant was disabled. There was no “hard edged rule” that a tribunal had to identify the claims before considering whether the Claimant possessed the protected characteristic (disability) needed for the claims broadly asserted.

Remember that challenging the fact of disability can be legitimate where you face a disability discrimination claim. It is relatively easy for a condition to meet the relevant test under the Equality Act 2010 but always worth challenging in litigation if you do not think it was or was likely to be long term (or recurring) and/or do not think it had a substantial adverse impact no their ability to undertake normal day to day activities.

AB v Grafters Group Ltd [2025] EAT 126The Claimant filed claims for religion and race discrimination in 2022.

His claims all related to alleged conduct before the end of October 2018.

The claims were therefore nearly 4 years out of time (having occurred more than 3 months before the claim was filed, adjusted for early conciliation) unless there was a continuing act or it was just and equitable to extend time.

At an open preliminary hearing to consider whether the claims were filed out of time, the Tribunal held that all of his complaints were present out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time, because the Claimant’s reasons for delay were unconvincing and not credible and because extending time would cause great prejudice to the Respondent employer given that the claims relied on verbal conversations in July 2018 between the Claimant and his former colleagues, some of whom had left the Respondent’s employment a long time ago (making it hard for them to adduce relevant evidence).

The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the Tribunal’s decision to dismiss Mr Ahmed’s claims on the basis that they were out of time. In relation to the principles relating to:

Time limits:

• Discrimination claims must be brought within 3 months.
• If conduct takes place over a period of time, it will be treated as ‘finished’ at the end of that period (known as a continuing act).
• The decision to relocate the Claimant Ahmed to cleaning duties in 2018 did not make the conduct a continuing act where the Claimant did not complain about any act after October 2018.

The concept of ‘just and equitable’:

• There is much prejudice to an employer where the claim is filed many years after the event, the claims rely on verbal discussions and many of the relevant witnesses are no longer employed by the employer. Recollections and details become harder to recall with the passage of time.
• The fact that refusing to extend time would leave the Claimant with no claim was not, by itself, sufficient justification to grant an extension. This is very often the impact of time limits.

It is much easier for Claimants to have time extended in relation to claims for discrimination compared to unfair dismissal. However, the Claimant still needs to persuade the Tribunal that it is just and equitable to extend time which will involve the Tribunal considering the prejudice each party would suffer if an extension were refused or given including:

• The length of and reasons for the delay in submitting the claim.
• The extent to which the clarity of the evidence is likely to be affected by the delay.
• The extent to which the employer had co-operated with any requests for information.
• The promptness with which the Claimant acted once they knew of the possibility of taking action.
• The steps taken by the Claimant to obtain appropriate professional advice once they knew of the possibility of taking action.

It is worth, where possible, trying to remain on good terms with exiting employees and managers to whom you may wish to appeal to assist you in legal proceedings sometime after they have left.

We have written a more detailed article on the Ms Ritchie v Goom Electrical case here.