Claim dismissed Employment Tribunal · 20 October 2023

Harassment claim against individual manager allowed to proceed late

A former employee's harassment and victimisation claims against her employer were deemed in time if there was conduct over a period, but time was extended for a harassment claim against the individual manager.

1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026

Case details

Key facts

  • The claimant presented complaints of unfair dismissal, harassment, and victimisation.
  • The respondent accepted the unfair dismissal complaint was in time.
  • The harassment and victimisation complaints relate to events on 12 and 19 October 2022.
  • The tribunal extended time for harassment claims against the second respondent on just and equitable grounds.
  • The tribunal did not decide whether there was conduct extending over a period.

Timeline

  1. Alleged harassment incident

    The claimant alleges harassment occurred on this date.

  2. Alleged victimisation incident

    The claimant alleges victimisation occurred on this date.

  3. Preliminary hearing

    The tribunal heard submissions on time limits for the complaints.

  4. Judgment sent

    The tribunal issued its judgment on time limits.

The outcome

The tribunal decided that the unfair dismissal complaint was accepted as in time by the employer. For the harassment and victimisation complaints against the employer, if there was conduct extending over a period, they were in time. For the harassment complaint against the individual manager, time was extended on just and equitable grounds.

Key reasons:

  • The delay in bringing the claim against the manager was substantially not the claimant's fault.
  • The manager was not prejudiced by the claim being about one month late.
  • If the employer successfully raised a statutory defence, the claimant could be left without a remedy for harassment if the claim against the manager was dismissed on time grounds.

No compensation was awarded as this was a preliminary hearing on time limits.

Lessons & takeaways

  • If you are bringing a claim against an individual as well as an employer, you may need to start early conciliation separately against each respondent.
  • A delay of just one month may be excused if it was not your fault and the other party is not prejudiced.
  • If your claim is against both an employer and an employee, the tribunal may extend time to avoid you being left without a remedy if the employer uses a statutory defence.
  • Always check the time limits for each type of claim – unfair dismissal and discrimination have different rules.

When a late harassment claim can still proceed

This case shows that even if a claim is presented late, a tribunal may allow it to go ahead if the delay was not the claimant's fault and the respondent is not prejudiced. The former employee brought complaints of unfair dismissal, harassment, and victimisation against her employer and a harassment claim against an individual manager.

What the tribunal decided

The employer accepted the unfair dismissal claim was in time. For the harassment and victimisation claims against the employer, the tribunal said they were in time if there was conduct extending over a period – a question for the final hearing. For the harassment claim against the manager, the tribunal extended time because the delay was only about one month, the claimant was not at fault for missing early conciliation against the manager, and the manager was not prejudiced. Importantly, if the employer successfully used a statutory defence, the claimant could be left without a remedy for harassment unless the claim against the manager proceeded.

What this means for similar claims

If you are bringing claims against both an employer and an individual employee, you must start early conciliation against each respondent separately. A short delay may be excused if it is not your fault. The tribunal will consider whether the delay has caused unfairness to the other side and whether refusing an extension would leave you without a remedy. This case is a reminder that time limits are strict, but there is some flexibility in discrimination claims where it is just and equitable to extend time.

Similar cases