Mohammed Rashad v The Chief Constable of Cleveland Police

An employment tribunal may assess the forensic effect of delay by making an evaluative assessment of the quality and reliability of oral evidence. It need not identify separate evidence that a witness’s memory has deteriorated. The question is the respondent’s actual forensic position when the tribunal determines whether an extension is just and equitable under Equality Act 2010.

Potential reputational harm to a non-party witness is not invariably irrelevant. It may be considered where the witness’s reputation is sufficiently connected to that of the respondent organisation and the risk bears on forensic prejudice. The discretion remains broad, subject to judicial exercise and adequate reasons.

The claimant brought wide-ranging employment tribunal claims concerning events involving serving and retired police officers. Complaint 9 alleged victimisation after Acting Inspector Dack sat on a promotion panel despite having been named in the claimant’s earlier discrimination proceedings.

The claimant raised a grievance shortly after the interview, but presented his employment tribunal claim outside the ordinary time limit. The employment tribunal dismissed all claims and refused a just and equitable extension for complaint 9. It found that delay had impaired the quality of relevant evidence and that a public determination could affect the professional reputation of individuals accused of unlawful conduct.

The claimant appealed the refusal of an extension under Equality Act 2010, section 123(1)(b), contending that the findings of forensic prejudice lacked evidential support and that reputational harm to a witness was irrelevant.

1. Appeal dismissed. The employment tribunal did not err in refusing a just and equitable extension of time for the victimisation complaint under Equality Act 2010, section 123(1)(b).

2. The tribunal was entitled to assess the effect of delay on the reliability of oral evidence. Applying the guidance in Gestmin SGPS v Credit Suisse (UK) Limited [2013] EWHC 360, such an assessment is inherently impressionistic and may arise from the tribunal’s evaluation of testimony. The claimant’s challenge was, in substance, a reasons appeal. The tribunal had explained sufficiently why the passage of time placed the respondent at forensic disadvantage.

3. The tribunal was not required to find that the burden of proof had shifted under section 136. The presence of a protected act and a possible detriment did not itself establish the necessary causal link. Reduced reliability could disadvantage the respondent both in resisting a prima facie inference and, if the burden shifted, in providing an explanation.

4. The tribunal did take potential reputational harm to Acting Inspector Dack into account. That was not automatically irrelevant merely because she was not a party. In a policing case, damage to an officer’s reputation may affect the reputation of the force. Where that connection exists, the risk may be included in the assessment insofar as it bears on forensic prejudice. It was an unusual but legitimate consideration on these facts.

5. The tribunal’s reasons, read in the context of a lengthy judgment addressing numerous complaints, enabled the parties to understand why the extension was refused. Both grounds of appeal were dismissed.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Appeal dismissed: [2026] EAT 1.
• Employment Tribunal: Dismissed all claims and refused a just and equitable extension of time for the victimisation aspect of complaint 9. No citation was stated.