Claimant v Newcastle University
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim was presented outside the statutory time limit (EDT 18 April 2023, claim filed 29 August 2023). Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have brought the claim in time. Claimant was on notice of correct EDT from 23 May 2023 Response and from HMRC portal in early June, but took no corrective action until after 24 August preliminary hearing. Her confusion about the EDT and premature first claim did not reasonably explain failure to act between May and July 2023.
Notice pay claim was presented outside the statutory time limit and subject to same jurisdictional bar as unfair dismissal claim. Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have brought the claim in time for the same reasons as the unfair dismissal claim.
Facts
Claimant, a research associate, had discussed resigning from November 2022 but never formally resigned. She ceased work in March 2023 and was paid until 23 March. Respondent treated employment as ending 18 April 2023. Claimant filed first ET1 on 3 April 2023 while still employed, claiming constructive dismissal. After being told repeatedly (in Response of 23 May, at preliminary hearing 20 June, and via HMRC portal in early June) that EDT was 18 April, she took no action until after preliminary hearing on 24 August 2023, when she filed second ET1 on 29 August 2023, well outside the three-month time limit which expired 17 July 2023.
Decision
Tribunal dismissed unfair dismissal and notice pay claims for lack of jurisdiction, finding it was reasonably practicable for claimant to have brought claims in time. Claimant was highly educated, well aware of her rights from February 2023 Acas contact, and repeatedly put on notice of correct EDT and premature nature of first claim from May 2023 onwards. Her failure to investigate or seek advice between May and July 2023 was unreasonable and not explained by any reasonable confusion.
Practical note
A claimant who is repeatedly put on notice of time limit problems and takes no steps to investigate or seek advice cannot rely on confusion about the EDT to establish that it was not reasonably practicable to claim in time.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2500668/2023
- Decision date
- 22 October 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
Employment details
- Role
- research associate
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No