The claimant, a delivery driver with generalised anxiety disorder, complained, by way of an amendment, that the respondent had failed to make reasonable adjustments after changes to driving routes disrupted his normal routine. At a full merits hearing, the ET found the reasonable adjustments complaint to be out of time and declined an extension, largely because fading memories of key discussions caused forensic prejudice. The claimant appealed, arguing the tribunal ignored the balance of prejudice and whether delay actually prejudiced the respondent.

HHJ Auerbach dismissed the appeal. The ET had not erred in concluding that there would be forensic prejudice to the respondent were time to be extended, in particular because of fading memories. Their conclusion that there was such forensic prejudice was properly rooted in an analysis of the facts, the witnesses’ memories and the extent to which contemporaneous documents or text messages could or could not assist. The judge also found the ET had not erred by not referring to the fact that the claimant would lose the chance to have the complaint adjudicated on its merits, were time not extended.