1/ CA judgment was handed down today in Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan. It'll be the go-to case for Claimants seeking a just and equitable extension of time under the Equality Act. #ukemplaw
2/ First, the Court deals with s.123(4), dismissing an argument by the Board that the date time runs from in an omission case must also be considered the date of breach. 
3/ The CA then turns to the 'just and equitable' discretion, starting by restating the well known approach to the Limitation Act s.33 factors set out in Keeble and clarified in Afolabi as not being a checklist. Leggatt considers the position more closely analogous to s.7(5) HRA.
4/ Leggatt LJ highlights two factors as being almost always relevant: (a) length of the delay and the reasons for it, and (b) whether the delay has prejudiced the respondent.
5/ Leggatt LJ goes on to describe the margin of discretion as being of 'very wide ambit' and 'broad and unfettered', cautioning that it should be rare for the exercise of discretion to be disturbed on appeal.
6/ Importantly, Leggatt LJ makes clear s.123(1) does not provide for a threshold whereby the claimant has to show a good reason for the delay. The claimant needs give no explanation at all. The lack of explanation is merely a relevant factor rather than determinative.
7/ That appears to put to bed para 52 of Langstaff J's judgment in the first EAT appeal in Morgan, which provided a useful hurdle for employers to raise. At the very least it heavily dampens down the emphasis.
8/ As a result, the question of a 'burden' on the claimant appears downgraded to near irrelevance. There's no reference to Caston and although Robertson v Bexley is referred to, the reference is not to the ' exercise of discretion is the exception rather than the rule' quote.
I seem to have posted the wrong link. Surprisingly the Trumpburger has nothing to do with Equality Act time limits. Try this one instead: bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/…
