The summary below is reproduced from the judgment:

The appellant was employed by the respondent as a health care assistant from 4 July 2009 to 8 June 2022. She was dismissed on 8 June 2022 following an absence management procedure in which the respondent concluded that she was not medically fit to continue in her role. The appellant appealed against her dismissal on 22 June 2022. She attended an internal appeal hearing on 18 November 2022. On 19 November 2022 she was advised that her appeal had been refused.

The appellant then presented ET1 claim forms on 10 and 12 January 2023 in which she complained of unfair dismissal (ordinary and automatic) and disability discrimination.

The claims were resisted, inter alia on the basis that they had each been presented out of time. Following a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal concluded that (a) the unfair dismissal complaints had been presented almost four months after the primary time limit in section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act, 1996 and it would have been reasonably practicable for them to have been presented within that time limit; and (b) the discrimination complaints had also been presented almost four months after the statutory time limit in section 123 of the Equality Act, 2010, and it would not be just and equitable to extend the time limit.
On appeal, the appellant contended that the Tribunal had erred in law (i) by failing to consider the fact that she had brought an internal appeal against her dismissal; and (ii) in failing to consider, for the purposes of the discrimination complaints, whether the dismissal of her internal appeal was itself an act of discrimination, and thus part of a course of conduct extending over a period that ended on 19 November 2022.

Held:

Neither of the issues raised in the grounds of appeal had formed any part of the appellant’s case before the Employment Tribunal. The Tribunal could not be said to have erred in law by failing to consider matters that were never raised before it in evidence or the appellant’s pleaded case.

The appeal was, therefore, dismissed.