Outcome
Individual claims
Claim presented 23 days out of time. Second ACAS certificate invalid as relating to same matter as first certificate. Tribunal applied Dedman principle that reliance on incorrect legal advice from solicitors does not make it not reasonably practicable to present claim in time. Claim struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
Claim presented 23 days out of time. Despite claimant being misled by DAS Law solicitors about limitation period (advised deadline was 12 February 2024 rather than 1 January 2024 plus extension), tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present claim in time under Dedman principle. No jurisdiction.
Related to trade union membership/activities. Presented 23 days out of time. Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present in time despite incorrect solicitor advice. Struck out for lack of jurisdiction under reasonably practicable test for ERA claims.
Claim presented 23 days out of time. Tribunal applied reasonably practicable test and found that reliance on incorrect legal advice from DAS Law did not excuse late presentation. Claim struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
Presented 23 days out of time. Despite claimant being misadvised by solicitors, tribunal applied Dedman principle and found it was reasonably practicable to present claim in time. Struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
Claim presented 23 days out of time due to incorrect solicitor advice about limitation period. Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present in time applying Dedman principle. No jurisdiction to hear claim.
Claim presented 23 days out of time. Tribunal exercised discretion to extend time under just and equitable test. Delay was short, caused by understandable reliance on incorrect legal advice, and claimant acted promptly once aware of error. Prejudice to claimant of losing claim outweighed prejudice to respondent. Time extended to 24 January 2024.
Facts
The claimant was dismissed on 2 October 2023. Her trade union representative had obtained an ACAS early conciliation certificate on 13 September 2023 before dismissal. The claimant obtained a second ACAS certificate on 23 November 2023 and instructed DAS Law solicitors via legal expenses insurance. DAS Law incorrectly advised the limitation date as 12 February 2024 rather than 1 January 2024. The claimant presented her claim on 24 January 2024, the same day DAS Law telephoned to say they may have misadvised her. The claim was 23 days out of time.
Decision
The tribunal struck out all claims except disability discrimination for being out of time. The second ACAS certificate was invalid as it related to the same matter as the first. Despite incorrect legal advice, the Dedman principle applied: reliance on solicitors does not make late presentation not reasonably practicable. However, for disability discrimination, the tribunal exercised its discretion to extend time under the just and equitable test given the short delay and understandable circumstances.
Practical note
A second ACAS early conciliation certificate relating to the same matter as a first certificate (even if obtained before dismissal) has no effect on time limits, and incorrect solicitor advice does not excuse late presentation of non-discrimination claims under the reasonably practicable test.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3301105/2024
- Decision date
- 5 December 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Stonbury Limited
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No