Claimant v Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim was time-barred. The tribunal found the claimant had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. Although the claimant was stressed and had health concerns, he was able to apply for jobs during the limitation period and had access to the internet to check time limits but did not do so.
Claim was time-barred. The tribunal declined to extend time on just and equitable grounds. The delay was 9 weeks against a 13-week limitation period. The claimant knew of his right to claim, had internet access but did not check time limits, and was ambivalent about bringing the claim. The claim as pleaded was not obviously strong.
Claim for non-payment of retention bonus was time-barred. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim in time. Despite stress and health concerns, the claimant was able to apply for jobs and had access to information about time limits.
Alternative claim for unpaid bonus presented as breach of contract was also time-barred under the same reasoning as the unlawful deduction from wages claim. The claimant failed to show it was not reasonably practicable to present in time.
Facts
The claimant was employed as a senior project manager for 26 years until his redundancy on 31 December 2024. He was promised a 10% retention bonus at meetings in December 2023, later extended to those remaining until practical completion on 31 August 2024, but the bonus was never paid. During redundancy consultations, the claimant believed he would be 'the last man standing' but was made redundant on 31 December 2024, while a younger senior project manager was offered alternative work. The claimant was 57; his comparator was 52.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims as time-barred. The claimant did not commence ACAS early conciliation until 30 April 2025, nine weeks after the limitation period expired on 30 March 2025. The tribunal found the claimant had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to present claims in time, noting he was able to search for and secure new employment during the limitation period but did not check time limits despite having internet access.
Practical note
Even significant stress and health concerns may not satisfy the 'not reasonably practicable' test if the claimant was able to undertake complex tasks like job searching during the limitation period but failed to check easily accessible time limits.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8001434/2025
- Decision date
- 27 October 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- construction
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Senior Project Manager
- Service
- 27 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No