Monzo Bank Ltd

Case Summary

Preliminary hearing on time limit issues in a multi-claim case involving unfair dismissal, whistleblowing, discrimination, and harassment claims against Monzo Bank Limited. The tribunal dismissed several claims as out of time where it was reasonably practicable to present them. The harassment-related race claim was dismissed as it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit. The failure to make reasonable adjustments claim was permitted to proceed despite being out of time.

The tribunal found that the claimant failed to present most claims within the applicable time limits and that it was reasonably practicable to do so, dismissing those claims for lack of jurisdiction. The harassment claim was dismissed because although out of time, it was not just and equitable to extend the deadline as the claimant was aware of time limits, had no valid excuse for the 8.5 month delay, and the evidence would be prejudiced by witness memory fade. The failure to make reasonable adjustments claim was allowed to proceed as it was just and equitable to extend time in those circumstances.

• •Whether claims were presented within applicable time limits
• •Whether it was reasonably practicable to present claims within time limits
• •Whether it is just and equitable to extend time limits under Equality Act 2010
• •Calculation of limitation periods where early conciliation commenced before effective date of termination
• •Relevance of legal representative's use of online limitation calculator without proper consideration of exceptions

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Shireen Asaw Respondent: Monzo Bank Limited Heard at: London South (by video) On: 19 January 2026 Before: Employment Judge N Wilson Appearances For the claimant: Mr Franck Magennis (counsel) For the respondent: Mr Paras Gorasia (counsel) PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING JUDGMENT 1. The following complaints were not presented within the applicable time limit. It was reasonably practicable to do so. The claims set out below in this paragraph are therefore dismissed as the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear them: a. Ordinary unfair dismissal (s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996). (‘ERA’) b. Automatic unfair dismissal: i. s.152(1)(a) and/or (b) Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (‘TULR(C)A 1992’) ii. s. 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 (protected disclosures). c. Detriment short of dismissal: i. s.146 TULR(C)A 1992; ii. s.47 B ERA 1996 (protected disclosures). d. Unauthorised deductions from wages (section 13 ERA 1996) e. Breach of contract 2. The complaint of harassment related to race (s.26 Equality Act 2010) was not presented within the applicable time limit. It is not just and equitable to extend the time limit. This claim is therefore dismissed as the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear it. 3. Time limits in relation to the complaints of victimisation (section 27 Equality Act 2010) and discrimination arising from disability (section 15 Equality Act 2010) will be determined at the final hearing. 4. The complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments (ss.20-21 Equality Act 2010) was not presented within the applicable time limit but it is just and equitable to extend the time limit. This claim will therefore proceed. REASONS Background 5. This hearing is listed to deal with time limits and the claimant’s claims potentially being out of time. 6. The letter from the Tribunal list…