The Claimant brought a victimisation complaint against the Respondent but the ET refused to grant a just and equitable extension of time. The Claimant argued first that the ET erred in finding witness evidence “less reliable” due to delay without an evidential foundation to do so, and wrongly inferred forensic prejudice; and secondly that the ET took into account an irrelevant consideration, namely potential reputational damage to a witness.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. (1) The ET had not erred in law. Its assessment of deterioration in evidence quality was a permissible, impressionistic evaluation applying Gestmin principles. The ET’s reasoning sufficiently explained why delay created forensic disadvantage to the respondent’s ability to meet the case. (2) Reputational risk to a non-party witness is not automatically irrelevant. In the policing context, impaired reputation may carry implications for the respondent organisation, forming part of the overall forensic prejudice. The ET was entitled to weigh this factor. (3) The ET’s conclusion on limitation was within its broad discretion under s123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010, and its reasons were adequate.