Former employee with severe depression granted adjournment in sexual harassment claim
A tribunal has adjourned a preliminary hearing on time limits for a sexual harassment claim after the claimant's representative said she was too unwell to proceed. The judge found the risk of injustice to the claimant outweighed the delay to Ocado.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant presented a claim for sexual harassment and unfair dismissal on 11 October 2021.
- The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed on 28 February 2022 for lack of service.
- A preliminary hearing was listed for 9 January 2023 to consider time limits for the sexual harassment claim.
- The claimant's representative sought an adjournment due to the claimant's poor mental health.
- The only medical evidence provided was an occupational health report from July 2021.
- The tribunal granted the adjournment, finding the claimant would suffer greater prejudice if it were refused.
Timeline
-
Occupational health report
AXA report noted claimant's anxiety and depression, with substantial impairment of daily activities.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed with effect from this date on grounds of gross misconduct.
-
Claim presented
Claimant brought claims for sexual harassment and unfair dismissal.
-
Unfair dismissal claim dismissed
Claim dismissed because claimant did not have 2 years' service.
-
Preliminary hearing listed
Employment Judge Beck listed the matter for an open preliminary hearing on 9 January 2023.
-
Claimant sought support
Claimant approached Inspiring Addiction Recovery for support due to poor mental health.
-
Adjournment granted
Employment Judge Choudry adjourned the preliminary hearing to 11 April 2023.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether to adjourn a preliminary hearing about time limits for a sexual harassment claim, given the claimant's severe depression and lack of up-to-date medical evidence.
The outcome
The tribunal adjourned the preliminary hearing to 11 April 2023, giving the claimant time to obtain fresh medical evidence and prepare.
The key reasons were:
- The only medical evidence was a July 2021 occupational health report showing substantial impairment of daily activities.
- The claimant had only recently sought support from an addiction recovery charity and was described as 'confused and overwhelmed'.
- The judge decided the claimant would suffer greater prejudice if the hearing went ahead than Ocado would suffer from the delay.
No compensation was awarded as this was a procedural decision.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are too unwell to attend a tribunal hearing, ask for an adjournment as early as possible and provide medical evidence.
- Even old medical evidence can help support an adjournment if it shows a serious, ongoing condition.
- Tribunals will weigh the prejudice to both sides – if your health is severely affected, the balance may tip in your favour.
- A lay representative can request an adjournment, but the tribunal expects them to have considered the case in advance.
When mental health stops a case from moving forward
This case shows the difficult balance tribunals must strike when a claimant's mental health prevents them from participating. The former employee had brought claims of sexual harassment and unfair dismissal against Ocado Central Service Limited. The unfair dismissal claim had already been thrown out for lack of service, leaving only the harassment claim – and the first hurdle was whether it had been brought in time.
On the morning of the preliminary hearing, the claimant's representative – a lay supporter from an addiction recovery charity – told the judge she was 'confused and overwhelmed' and needed more time. The only medical evidence was an occupational health report from July 2021, which described severe depression, panic attacks, and an inability to leave the house. The respondent argued that the claimant had already had plenty of time and that further delay would prejudice them.
What the tribunal decided
Employment Judge Choudry granted the adjournment, finding that the claimant would suffer greater prejudice if forced to proceed. The judge noted that the claimant had only recently sought support and that the old medical report, while dated, showed a condition that was likely to take months to improve. The hearing was put back to April 2023, giving the claimant a chance to obtain up-to-date GP evidence and prepare properly.
What this means for similar claims
The decision is a reminder that tribunals will take mental health seriously, even when the medical evidence is not fresh. However, it also highlights the risks of leaving things to the last minute. The claimant's representative admitted he had not looked at the case papers until the day before. A stronger position would have been to request the adjournment earlier and to have sought a GP letter in advance. For anyone in a similar situation, the message is clear: if your health is affecting your ability to pursue a claim, tell the tribunal as soon as possible and gather whatever medical evidence you can – even if it is not perfect.
Similar cases
Sexual harassment claims survive strike-out but discrimination and monetary claims fail
A former business service consultant's direct sex discrimination and bonus claims were struck out, but her sexual harassment and harassment related to sex claims will proceed to a final hearing.
Dismissed after absence management meetings: tribunal rejects disability discrimination claims
An employee with a mental health disability lost all claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination after the tribunal found the health board's absence management process was reasonable.
19-year employee's claims dismissed as out of time despite disabilities
A bureau operator with 19 years' service had his claims for breach of contract and discrimination thrown out because they were lodged over four years after his dismissal.
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.