Claimant v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim presented seven days out of time. Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present his claim by the deadline of 13 March 2025. The claimant had wrongly assumed the deadline was three months from the ACAS certificate (23 March), but this was not a reasonable belief as he could have easily checked the correct time limit by internet search or asking ACAS. His mental health issues and ongoing appeal did not prevent him from presenting the claim in time or checking the deadline.
Claim presented seven days out of time on the same basis as the ordinary unfair dismissal claim. Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present his claim by 13 March 2025. The claimant's mistaken belief about the deadline was not reasonable, and he had the means and ability to check the correct time limit but failed to do so.
This claim under Section 103A ERA 1996 (automatically unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures) was struck out on time limit grounds along with the other unfair dismissal claims. The substantive merits were not determined at this preliminary hearing.
Facts
The claimant was employed by Network Rail as a Mobile Incident Officer from November 2016 until his dismissal on 31 October 2024. He notified ACAS on 11 November 2024 and received an early conciliation certificate on 23 December 2024. He mistakenly believed the deadline for presenting his claim was three months from the ACAS certificate (23 March 2025) rather than the actual deadline of 13 March 2025 after extension for early conciliation. He presented his claim on 20 March 2025, seven days late. The claimant argued his mental health issues (PTSD, anxiety and depression) and ongoing appeal process prevented timely submission.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal and automatically unfair dismissal claims as out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented his claim by the deadline. Although the claimant genuinely but mistakenly believed the deadline was 23 March, this belief was not reasonable as he could easily have checked the correct time limit by internet search. His mental health did not prevent him from presenting the claim in time or checking the deadline, as evidenced by his ability to work, correspond and engage in appeal processes during the relevant period.
Practical note
Even genuine mistakes about tribunal time limits will not save a late claim unless the ignorance was reasonable — in the internet age, claimants are expected to check deadlines via simple online searches.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6009623/2025
- Decision date
- 1 October 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- transport
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Mobile Incident Officer
- Service
- 8 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No