Ahmed v Capital Arches

Ahmed v Capital Arches [2025] EAT 133

Facts

The case of Mr N Ahmed v Capital Arches Group Limited EAT 133 concerned an appeal from an Employment Tribunal (ET) decision that dismissed Mr N Ahmed's (the claimant) entire claim of religion or belief and race discrimination for being presented out of time. The claimant began working for a McDonald's restaurant on 18 May 2018, with his employment transferring to Capital Arches Group Limited (the respondent) around 1 October 2018.

The claimant submitted his claim form on 27 October 2022, while still employed but on long-term sick leave since June 2021. His claim alleged discrimination from July 2018 by Bengali Muslim colleagues because he did not share their religious activities during Ramadan. He complained that after he reported this to his business manager, Ms Celine Lyan, she allegedly responded by increasing pressure, assigning heavy manual tasks, and failing to provide relief, which contributed to his deteriorating health and eventually a disability. In an amendment application, the claimant clarified that Ms Lyan's actions included changing his duties to a cleaner in October 2018, which he viewed as a detrimental breach of contract and segregation. The respondent denied the allegations, stating the claimant was moved due to productivity issues and that the claims were out of time.

At a preliminary hearing on 22 June 2023, Employment Judge (EJ) Snelson narrowed the live complaints to direct discrimination because of religion or belief and/or race, and specified that these claims rested on events occurring up to and ending in October 2018, explicitly excluding any post-2018 matters. EJ Snelson also confirmed that no complaint of disability discrimination was before the tribunal.

At a subsequent hearing on 15 September 2023, EJ Klimov determined that the claimant's complaints were presented "almost four years after the expire of the primary limitation period" (reckoned from October 2018). EJ Klimov found the claimant's explanations for the delay unconvincing and concluded that allowing the claim to proceed would be seriously prejudicial to the respondent, as the events were over five years old, memories would have faded, and it would be difficult to trace former employees to defend allegations of verbal conversations from July 2018. Consequently, EJ Klimov dismissed the claim, ruling it was not just and equitable to extend time.

Held

The claimant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) on three grounds:

(a) the correct date for the time to run,

(b) the assessment of prejudice to the respondent, and

(c) the fairness of the hearing due to Ms Lyan's absence as a witness.

The EAT, presided over by His Honour Judge Auerbach, upheld EJ Klimov's decision. The EAT affirmed that EJ Klimov correctly identified the live complaints as ending in October 2018. It ruled that Ms Lyan's decision to change duties was a "one-off act" with continuing consequences, not "conduct extending over a period," citing Parr v MSR Partners LLP [2022] EWCACiv 24. The EAT also found no error in EJ Klimov's assessment of prejudice, noting that the difficulty in tracing former colleagues was a valid concern. Regarding the fair trial point, the EAT concluded that the claimant did not receive an unfair hearing; the respondent did not rely on Ms Lyan as a witness, nor on her earlier statement, and the hearing was procedural, not a full merits hearing.

Comment

This case highlights the stringent application of time limits for discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010. The EAT's decision reinforces the crucial distinction between a "one-off act with continuing consequences" and "conduct extending over a period" for determining when the statutory limitation period begins. Ms Lyan's decision to reassign the claimant's duties was deemed a discrete act, even though its effects were long-lasting, a point that often proves challenging for claimants to navigate without legal guidance.

The judgment also underscores the importance of precisely pleading claims. The scope of the "live complaints" was strictly limited by the claimant's initial claim form and subsequent amendment applications. This meant that any alleged discriminatory acts occurring after October 2018 were not considered part of the substantive claim before the tribunal, severely impacting the calculation of delay for time extension purposes.

Furthermore, the case provides insight into the considerations for a "just and equitable" extension of time, where factors such as the significant length of delay (almost four years in this instance), the credibility of reasons for the delay, and the demonstrable prejudice to the respondent (e.g., fading memories, unavailability of witnesses for events many years old) are critically weighed. The EAT explicitly noted that the non-appearance of a witness, such as Ms Lyan, did not necessarily lead to an unfair hearing, especially when the respondent did not rely on that witness's evidence and the hearing was for preliminary time points rather than the full merits of the case. This aspect highlights the procedural challenges that litigants in person, such as Mr Ahmed, often face in understanding the nuances of tribunal processes.