Agency healthcare assistant's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims struck out as out of time
An agency healthcare assistant's claims against the Secretary of State for Justice were dismissed after the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction over her unfair dismissal claim and her discrimination claims were presented two days late.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #agency-worker
- #unfair-dismissal-jurisdiction
- #out-of-time
- #just-and-equitable
- #race-discrimination
- #sex-discrimination
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by an agency called Belmont, not by the respondent.
- The claimant started working at HMP Nottingham on 10 May 2022.
- The claimant was permanently suspended from working at HMP Nottingham on 22 July 2022.
- The claimant commenced early conciliation on 19 October 2022 and received the certificate on 18 November 2022.
- The claim was presented on 20 December 2022, two days after the extended deadline of 18 December 2022.
- The claimant provided no evidence to justify extending time for the discrimination claims.
Timeline
-
Start of work at HMP Nottingham
The claimant started working at HMP Nottingham as a healthcare assistant via agency Belmont.
-
Suspension from HMP Nottingham
The claimant was permanently suspended from working at HMP Nottingham.
-
Early conciliation started
The claimant commenced early conciliation (Day A).
-
Normal time limit expired
The normal three-month time limit for discrimination claims expired.
-
Early conciliation certificate received
The claimant received the early conciliation certificate (Day B), extending time to 18 December 2022.
-
Claim form completed
The claimant completed the claim form.
-
Claim presented
The claim was presented to the tribunal, two days after the extended deadline.
-
Case listed for substantive hearing
The case was listed for a substantive hearing on 19-21 February 2024.
-
Postponed case management hearing
A telephone case management hearing was postponed due to claimant's telephone difficulties.
-
Preliminary hearing and judgment
The preliminary hearing was held and the judgment was issued, striking out the unfair dismissal claim and dismissing the discrimination claims as out of time.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether it had jurisdiction to hear an unfair dismissal claim from an agency worker against the end-user, and whether discrimination claims were presented within the time limit (including any extension for early conciliation).
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant was employed by agency Belmont, not the Secretary of State for Justice, meaning it had no jurisdiction. The discrimination claims were dismissed as out of time: the normal three-month limit expired on 21 October 2022, and early conciliation extended the deadline to 18 December 2022, but the claim was presented on 20 December 2022 – two days late. The tribunal found no just and equitable reason to extend time, noting the claimant provided no evidence to justify the delay and the respondent would suffer prejudice in defending stale claims.
Lessons & takeaways
- Agency workers cannot bring unfair dismissal claims against the end-user unless they are directly employed by them – check your employment status before claiming.
- Time limits for discrimination claims are strict; even a two-day delay can be fatal if there is no good reason for it.
- If you miss a deadline, you must provide evidence to persuade the tribunal that it is just and equitable to extend time – a bare assertion is not enough.
- Early conciliation extends the time limit, but you must present your claim promptly after the certificate is issued.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates the harsh reality of employment tribunal time limits and the importance of establishing who your employer is. The claimant, an agency healthcare assistant, worked at HMP Nottingham via an agency called Belmont. When she was suspended from the prison, she brought claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination against the Secretary of State for Justice – the government department running the prison. However, as an agency worker, her employer was Belmont, not the Secretary of State. The tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear her unfair dismissal claim, and it was struck out.
The time limit trap
Even if the unfair dismissal claim could have proceeded, the discrimination claims faced an insurmountable hurdle: they were presented just two days late. The normal three-month limit for discrimination claims expired on 21 October 2022. Early conciliation extended the deadline to 18 December 2022, but the claim was not presented until 20 December. The tribunal found no just and equitable reason to extend time. The claimant provided no evidence to explain the delay – no medical evidence, no details of any difficulties. The respondent, on the other hand, would suffer prejudice if required to defend a claim about events that were already over a year old.
Why this result matters
For anyone considering a tribunal claim, this case is a stark reminder that time limits are enforced rigorously. Even a short delay can be fatal if there is no good explanation. It also highlights the importance of correctly identifying the respondent. Agency workers should be aware that their legal employer is usually the agency, not the end-user, and that unfair dismissal rights require two years' continuous service with that employer. The tribunal's decision to dismiss all claims without a hearing on the merits may seem harsh, but it reflects the legal framework designed to ensure claims are brought promptly and against the right party.
Similar cases
Race and sex discrimination claims dismissed as out of time: what constitutes a continuing act
A tribunal dismissed a manager's race and sex discrimination claims because they were presented too late, finding that separate promotion decisions were not part of a continuing act and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
Former employee awarded notice pay after tribunal extends time for late claim
A tribunal extended time for an unfair dismissal claim filed 11 days late, but struck it out for lack of merit. The claimant succeeded only on a breach of contract claim for notice pay, receiving £948.78.
Former employee's claims struck out as out of time and for unreasonable conduct
A former employee's unfair dismissal, whistleblowing and discrimination claims have been struck out after being brought too late, with the tribunal also citing unreasonable conduct. The respondent was awarded £5,000 in costs.
Sex discrimination amendment refused: comparing safety concerns with colleague
A former employee's attempt to add a sex discrimination claim based on how her safety concerns were handled compared to a colleague's was refused by the tribunal as out of time and lacking merit.