Claimant v Marshall Land Systems Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim dismissed as out of time. Claimant's employment terminated 7 March 2024. After early conciliation extension, deadline was 30 June 2024. Claim filed 6 July 2024. Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for claimant to have presented claim in time, as he knew of time limits, had internet access, and had sufficient time after rejection of his first claim on 14 June 2024 to submit a valid claim by 30 June 2024.
Application for interim relief was made over 10 weeks after the effective date of termination, well outside the 7-day statutory time limit under s.128(2) ERA 1996. Application was therefore rejected and subsequently dismissed.
Dismissed as out of time on same basis as whistleblowing claim. Claimant alleged he was dismissed following exposure of allegedly fraudulent activity. Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for claim to be presented before 30 June 2024 deadline.
Alleged detrimental treatment as a whistleblower dismissed as out of time. Same reasoning as other claims - tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to submit claim by deadline of 30 June 2024.
Facts
The claimant was employed as a Project Manager from November 2023 to March 2024. He was dismissed with immediate effect on 7 March 2024 with payment in lieu of notice, which he alleged was because he exposed fraudulent activity. He raised a grievance and subsequently attempted to bring claims including whistleblowing and interim relief. His initial application for interim relief on 28 May 2024 was rejected as it was over 10 weeks out of the 7-day statutory time limit and lacked an early conciliation certificate. He submitted a second claim on 6 July 2024 after obtaining a certificate on 31 May 2024.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims as out of time. It found the effective date of termination was 7 March 2024, giving a deadline of 30 June 2024 (extended by early conciliation). The claim filed on 6 July 2024 was therefore late. The tribunal held it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented his claim in time, as he was knowledgeable about his rights, had internet access, and had sufficient time after his first claim was rejected on 14 June 2024 to submit a valid claim by the deadline.
Practical note
A claimant with knowledge of time limits and access to online resources will struggle to establish it was not reasonably practicable to present a claim in time, even where there has been confusion about procedural requirements such as early conciliation certificates.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3306447/2024
- Decision date
- 1 October 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Project Manager
- Service
- 3 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No