Cases3305996/2024

Claimant v Honeywell Avionics Systems Ltd

7 October 2025Before Employment Judge BoothReadinghybrid

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

The claim was presented outside the three month time limit prescribed by s.111 ERA 1996. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present her complaint within the time limit, particularly as she became aware of her rights in January/February 2024 but elected to wait until after her appeal concluded and then spent months collating evidence. The tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim and it was dismissed.

Facts

The claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct on 11 December 2023. She appealed, with the appeal dismissed on 28 February 2024. The claimant became aware of her right to bring an unfair dismissal claim and the existence of a three month time limit in January or February 2024, but elected to wait until the appeal concluded and then spent months collating evidence. She contacted ACAS and presented her claim on 18 June 2024, over three months after the effective date of termination.

Decision

The tribunal found that the claim was presented outside the statutory three month time limit. It held that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present her claim within the time limit, as she became aware of her rights and the time limit in January/February 2024 but chose not to conduct adequate research or act promptly. The tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the claim and dismissed it.

Practical note

A claimant who becomes aware of their right to claim and the existence of time limits has a responsibility to inform themselves fully of how those time limits apply, and waiting for an internal appeal or to collate evidence will not render it not reasonably practicable to claim in time.

Legal authorities cited

Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton [1991] ICRAghedosa v Urbaser Ltd ET Case No. 1403909/20Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd v G Britton [2022] EAT 108Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd [1974] ICR 53Porter v Bandridge Ltd [1978] ICR 943Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1984] ICR 372Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser EAT 0165/07Bodha v Hampshire Area Health Authority [1982] ICR 200Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy [2019] EWCA Civ 2490

Statutes

Employment Rights Act 1996 s.207BEmployment Rights Act 1996 s.97Employment Rights Act 1996 s.111

Case details

Case number
3305996/2024
Decision date
7 October 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
manufacturing
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Salary band
£80,000–£100,000

Claimant representation

Represented
No