Cases3308764/2024

Claimant v Sciensus Pharma Services Limited

11 November 2025Before Employment Judge AlliottWatfordremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

Claim struck out for being presented outside the three-month time limit. Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present her claim in time. Despite her claimed depression and stress, she actively pursued an internal appeal and an NMC registration appeal during the limitation period, demonstrating capacity to act. No medical evidence covered the relevant period. Any ignorance of time limits was unreasonable.

Facts

The claimant was dismissed on 19 March 2024 and paid in lieu of notice. She did not contact ACAS until 17 July 2024, well outside the three-month time limit which expired on 18 June 2024. Her claim was filed on 23 August 2024. She argued that depression and stress following dismissal prevented her from acting in time, and that her union (RCN) could not assist due to lapsed membership. However, during the limitation period she actively pursued an internal appeal hearing on 21 May 2024 and an NMC appeal regarding her nursing registration, demonstrating capacity to act.

Decision

The tribunal struck out the claim for lack of jurisdiction, finding it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present her claim in time. Despite her claimed mental health issues, she demonstrated capacity to pursue other appeals during the relevant period. She provided no medical evidence covering the limitation period. Any ignorance of time limits was unreasonable given her intelligence, education, and awareness of potential legal rights.

Practical note

Depression and stress following dismissal will not extend time limits where the claimant demonstrates capacity to pursue other proceedings during the limitation period and provides no medical evidence of incapacity during the critical time.

Legal authorities cited

Schultz v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd [1999] ICR 1202Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd [1974] ICR 53Walls Meat Co Ltd v Khan [1979] ICR 52Porter v Bandridge Ltd [1978] ICR 943Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1984] ICR 372

Statutes

Employment Rights Act 1996 s.111

Case details

Case number
3308764/2024
Decision date
11 November 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No