Cases1601133/2024

Claimant v Axiom Ince Limited (in administration)

9 October 2025Before Employment Judge JM WadeLeedsremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissaldismissed on withdrawal

Claim dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 due to claimant's failure to attend preliminary hearing addressing time limit issues. Claim was substantially out of time, filed approximately 5-6 months after dismissal.

Breach of Contractdismissed on withdrawal

Claim for notice pay dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 due to claimant's failure to attend preliminary hearing. Claim filed outside the 3-month time limit, with no explanation provided as to why it was not reasonably practicable to file in time.

Failure to Inform & Consultdismissed on withdrawal

Protective award claim dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 due to claimant's failure to attend preliminary hearing. Claim filed substantially outside the 3-month time limit running from first dismissals (which occurred a month or more before claimant's dismissal date).

Facts

The claimant was Head of Revenue, AP and Payroll at Axiom Ince Limited, a law firm that fell into administration in 2023. She was dismissed on 9 November 2023 and commenced new employment on 2 December 2023. She did not commence ACAS conciliation until April 2024, substantially outside the 3-month time limit. She filed claims for unfair dismissal, notice pay, and a protective award on 29 April 2024. A preliminary hearing was listed for 9 October 2025 to address time limit issues, but the claimant failed to attend, stating she was at work in meetings and was not aware of the hearing.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed all claims pursuant to Rule 47 due to the claimant's failure to attend the preliminary hearing. The judge noted the claims were substantially out of time, filed 5-6 months after dismissal with no explanation as to why it was not reasonably practicable to file in time. The judge observed that ineffective hearings have a cost to the public purse and that dismissal was in the interests of justice in all the circumstances.

Practical note

Even where a respondent is in administration, claimants must comply with strict time limits and attend scheduled hearings, or face dismissal under Rule 47 for non-attendance at preliminary hearings addressing jurisdictional issues.

Legal authorities cited

Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd [1988] ICR 142

Case details

Case number
1601133/2024
Decision date
9 October 2025
Hearing type
dismissal on withdrawal
Hearing days
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
legal services
Represented
No

Employment details

Role
Head of Revenue, AP and Payroll

Claimant representation

Represented
No