Claimant v Biffa Municipal Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim dismissed for want of jurisdiction as presented over 6 months out of time. Claimant failed to provide any evidence that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the primary 3-month time limit. Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present in time.
Claim brought under s.103A ERA dismissed on same jurisdictional grounds as unfair dismissal - presented outside time limit without evidence of reasonable impracticability.
Claims under ss.96 and 98 ERA dismissed for want of jurisdiction due to being outside applicable time limit without satisfactory explanation for delay.
Facts
Claimant's employment ended on 23 November 2023. He contacted ACAS on 28 February 2024, after the primary 3-month time limit had expired on 22 February 2024. He filed his claim on 6 September 2024, approximately 6 months late. The claimant had learning difficulties and was supported by a community health worker. Despite multiple tribunal orders, he failed to provide a witness statement or medical evidence explaining the delay. He did not attend the final preliminary hearing.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims for want of jurisdiction. The claim was presented over 6 months out of time. The claimant provided no evidence that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the primary time limit, and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to do so.
Practical note
A claimant who notifies ACAS after the primary time limit has expired receives no extension of time, and without evidence of reasonable impracticability, even vulnerable claimants will have their claims struck out for being out of time.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1402416/2024
- Decision date
- 26 September 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No