The age discrimination claim was dismissed for being submitted six days late. The Tribunal held that claimant could not justify an extension of time, as he was aware of the deadline and should have sought help earlier. 

The claimant worked with the respondent from November 2017 until January 2024. The exact nature of that was disputed. The relationship ended following a conversation in January 2024. As part of that conversation there were alleged discriminatory comments relating to age. Those comments were denied by the respondent. The claimant did not present his claim until May 2024. The issue was whether the claim for age discrimination could continue. The claimant had already at this point withdrew claims including unfair dismissal.  

The claimant did engage with the LRA in March 2024 and he was given organisations which could provide limited free advice. He did not contact any of those and in April 2024 he received an Early Conciliation certificate which stated that the time had been paused for the Early Conciliation purposes but that it would recommence.  The claimant alleged that he felt that the time began running again.  There was reference to both a 3-month time limit and a 6-month time limit and he interpreted that as being a 6-month time limit but there was no explanation for that interpretation.  

The Tribunal took account of the fact that time was paused for 28 days for the Early Conciliation Certificate and found that the time limit would be 17th May but the claimant did not submit until 23rd May – some 6 days out of time.   

The Tribunal considered that the delay was not significant but that the claimant knew in March 2024 that there was a time limit for bringing such a claim.  The claimant chose not to avail of organisations and resources available to him to ensure that he presented a claim in time. The Tribunal acknowledged that there would be prejudice to the claimant in dismissing his claim due to time limits but also recognised that there would be prejudice to the respondents in that witnesses would be called on the factual dispute which was likely to extend over several years.  The Tribunal decided that the failure to present the case in time was due to the claimant’s conscious and deliberate decision not to seek professional advice.  As a result, there was no satisfactory explanation and the case was dismissed.  

This is yet another decision concerning time limits, although in this instance the delay was only six days. The Tribunal considered whether the claim ought to have been presented in time and concluded that the claimant should have sought assistance but chose not to. The Tribunal also commented on potential prejudice arising from the factual background spanning several years. However, this is arguably problematic, as the same historical issues would have required examination even if the claim had been submitted six days earlier. Nevertheless, the decision underscores that the burden rests with the claimant to show that it is just and equitable to extend time. 

NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website.