Claimant v IQ EQ Administration Services (UK) Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was presented out of time. The effective date of termination was 17 April 2024, meaning the primary time limit expired on 16 July 2024. The claim was not filed until 1 October 2024. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant, a successful businessman with access to professional legal advice and the internet, to have ascertained and complied with the correct time limit. His mistaken belief that he had three months from the end of the internal appeal process was unreasonable in the circumstances. The claim was therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Potential claim under Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 was mentioned in narrative but not properly particularised in the ET1. No actual comparator was identified as required by Carl v University of Sheffield. The tribunal found no freestanding complaint under the Regulations was made in the ET1. Even if it had been, it would have been out of time and the tribunal would not have found it just and equitable to extend time given the lack of clarity, the claimant's access to legal advice, the failure to amend despite invitation, and prejudice to the respondent.
Facts
The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 17 April 2024 with payment in lieu of six months' notice, totalling approximately £45,000. He pursued an internal appeal which concluded on 15 July 2024. He did not contact ACAS until 24 September 2024 and filed his ET1 on 1 October 2024. He claimed he believed he had three months from the end of the internal appeal process based on 'word of mouth' advice. His wife was diagnosed with breast cancer on 19 July 2024 which he said prevented him focusing on the claim. The claimant was a successful businessman who had been receiving professional legal advice from a solicitor (Mr Smith) throughout the redundancy process and had access to HR advice from a friend.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim for lack of jurisdiction as it was presented out of time. The tribunal found the effective date of termination was 17 April 2024, making the primary time limit 16 July 2024. It was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the claim in time because, as a professional businessman with ready access to legal advice, the internet, and other sources of information, it was reasonable to expect him to have ascertained the correct time limit rather than rely on unspecified 'word of mouth' advice. The tribunal also found no properly particularised claim under the Part-time Workers Regulations was made.
Practical note
A claimant's mistaken belief about time limits will not excuse late presentation where they had ready access to professional legal advice and the means to research the correct position, regardless of personal circumstances occurring after the time limit expired.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2307383/2024
- Decision date
- 27 August 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Group Funds Adviser
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor