Just and Equitable Extensions of Time in the Employment Tribunal: A Closer Look at Logo v Payone [2025]

It’s no secret that the Employment Tribunal (ET) imposes tight deadlines. The ACAS process for employment claims must be started “within” three months (meaning three months less one day) from the last act complained of. This can easily catch people out, especially when they’re dealing with the emotional and practical consequences of workplace discrimination. 

In cases involving discrimination, the tribunal has the discretion to extend time if it considers it “just and equitable” to do so. But what does that actually mean in practice and how do tribunals decide when to allow a late claim?

A recent decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), Logo v Payone and Others [2025] EAT 95, offers some much-needed clarity.

Understanding the Legal Context

The tribunal’s discretion when extending time is wide. In Abertawe Bro Morgannwg v Morgan [2018], the Court of Appeal confirmed that appellate courts should be slow to interfere with how tribunals exercise their discretion. Nevertheless, in Logo v Payone, the EAT found that the tribunal had misapplied the relevant principles and that the decision to refuse an extension of time was legally flawed.

The Facts in Logo v Payone

The Claimant brought several complaints to the ET. The appeal concerned two complaints of harassment that the ET decided were out of time. The two complaints that were deemed out of time were:

1. The “Blackface” incident: Where a colleague attended a work party wearing blackface makeup – this claim was issued four years after the event.
2. The “Crude Joke” incident: Where a different colleague recounted an offensive racial joke – this claim was brought four months late.

The ET accepted that both incidents had taken place, as a matter of fact, and that they constituted racial harassment. Nevertheless, it refused to extend time, finding that the Claimant’s explanation for the delay – namely, a fear of losing employment by retaliatory action – had not been “objectively demonstrated [to] be a reasonable fear.” Further, the ET placed significant weight on the alleged prejudice to the Respondent, primarily relating to witnesses’ fading memories. 

The Claimant appealed, and the EAT allowed the appeal on these two allegations. The principal reason the EAT did so was because the ET had not expressly identified and taken into account the significant prejudice to the Claimant in being denied a remedy for harassment or discrimination that the ET found as a fact had occurred.

Where the Tribunal Went Wrong

The Blackface Incident – four years out of time

The EAT found that the ET had taken an illogical and legally flawed approach to this incident. The respondent had admitted that the blackface incident had occurred and agreed that it amounted to harassment. Despite this, the ET placed weight on the idea that the passage of time had caused prejudice to the Respondent due to memory loss – an irrelevant consideration in circumstances where the central facts were already accepted.

At the same time, the ET failed to weigh the prejudice to the Claimant, who would be denied any remedy for a serious act of racial harassment. This failure to consider both sides of the equation meant that the ET’s decision could not stand. The analysis was considered perverse and outside the broad discretion tribunals are otherwise given.

The Crude Joke – four months out of time

The same issues arose with the second claim. The ET had accepted as a matter of fact that the offensive comment was made and that it had the effect of violating the Claimant’s dignity. However, it refused to extend time largely because the person who made the comment had difficulty recalling the context.

The EAT pointed out that this memory issue did not cause material prejudice to the Respondent. Specifically, the memory of the person complained of was not affected in a material sense because once reminded of the comment by a fellow colleague (subsequent to filing his witness statement),  he was able to recall the incident and its context. Since the ET had already found that the comment was made and its impact on the Claimant was clear, the EAT concluded that the limitations in the witness’s initial recollection did not affect the key legal findings.

Again, the ET had failed to consider the prejudice to the Claimant in being denied a remedy. 

EAT’s additional decision regarding the reason for delay

The EAT also found that the ET had applied too high a standard when assessing the Claimant’s explanation for the delay, expecting an “objectively sound” reason for the delay in bringing his claim (ie. evidence that the Claimant had a basis for his fear of losing his employment) rather than considering all the circumstances of the case in the round. 

A key takeaway from the EAT’s decision is that when considering the reason for a delay in bringing a claim, tribunals should focus on whether the claimant’s reason – such as their fear of losing their job – is genuine, rather than considering whether there is objective evidence to show that the reason for delay is justified. 

Why This Case Matters

Logo v Payone confirms that while tribunals do have discretion to refuse extensions of time, that discretion must be exercised fairly and logically. Proven acts of harassment and discrimination carry weight, and tribunals cannot ignore the injustice caused to a claimant who is denied any remedy simply due to delay – particularly when the respondent suffers little or no meaningful prejudice.

Although the general rule remains that time limits should be strictly observed, this case serves as a reminder that procedural fairness should never come at the cost of substantive justice.

Practical Takeaways

• Tribunals must take a balanced approach when deciding whether to extend time. They should not focus solely on the respondent’s position while overlooking the real-world consequences for claimants – especially where discrimination or harassment has been proven.
• Claimants should still act promptly wherever possible. However, this case makes clear that missing a deadline doesn’t always mean the end of the road. Where the underlying facts are strong and the balance of fairness supports it, an extension may be appropriate and failure to grant one can amount to an error of law.
• For respondents, this case underlines the importance of showing genuine and material prejudice if opposing an extension. General references to memory loss or delay won’t be enough if the essential facts are already admitted or established.

Farore Law regularly acts for clients bringing and defending discrimination claims and frequently is required to advise and make representations on extension of time.