A legal practice course (LPC) graduate’s tribunal claim against her former employer was rejected for being filed late.
- Ms J Fawcett, who worked at Charles Lyndon, filed her claim nearly seven months after her internship ended.
- Employment Judge Tinnion found no reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the claim.
- The tribunal ruled it was not justifiable to extend the time for Ms Fawcett’s claim.
- Ms Fawcett’s claims included constructive dismissal and various forms of discrimination.
Ms J Fawcett, a graduate of the Legal Practice Course, faced dismissal of her employment tribunal claim against Charles Lyndon, where she had completed an internship. Despite being aware of the three-month deadline to file such claims, Ms Fawcett delayed her filing by approximately seven months. As a result, her request for an extension was reviewed by Employment Judge Tinnion, who saw no just cause for the delay.
In his decision, Judge Tinnion highlighted Ms Fawcett’s educational background, noting that she had completed an employment law module as part of her LPC, which should have informed her about the importance of timely claims. Furthermore, Ms Fawcett admitted to being aware of the alleged incidents at the time they occurred, marking her as an eyewitness to most, if not all, of the events she reported.
During tribunal proceedings, Ms Fawcett mentioned difficulties in accessing legal advice from the Citizens Advice Bureau post-employment. However, Judge Tinnion questioned the necessity of such advice, given her evident understanding of her legal rights under the Equality Act 2010. The judge also noted the absence of medical evidence to support her request for an extension and dismissed her self-diagnosed autistic spectrum disorder as a justifiable cause for the delay.
Ms Fawcett presented documents detailing personal issues, including harassment by neighbours and partner-related bullying, which she claimed contributed to her filing delays. Yet, the tribunal found these documents to be logically composed and coherent, suggesting she had the capacity to file her claim on time. Moreover, it was noted that she had ceased living in her mentioned problematic residence before the filing period ended.
Ultimately, Judge Tinnion concluded that there was no reasonable explanation provided by Ms Fawcett for her failure to file within the legal timeframe. The tribunal found her fit and capable of submitting the claim on time, emphasising the claimant’s legal acumen and the lack of substantial grounds for granting an extension.
The tribunal decisively rejected Ms Fawcett’s claim extension due to lack of timely action and insufficient justification.
