Claimant v Migrant Help UK
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim was presented 57 days out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the claim in time because: he had a legal background with undergraduate and postgraduate law qualifications; he was assisted by a well-qualified lay representative from December 2023; he had contacted Citizens Advice and a retired HR professional before the deadline; and he had robustly pursued an internal appeal mentioning employment tribunals and unfair dismissal. His PTSD, while accepted as genuine, did not prevent him from completing the appeal process and therefore would not have prevented submission of an ET1. The claim was therefore dismissed for being out of time.
Facts
The claimant was dismissed on 15 February 2024 for 'some other substantial reason' relating to DBS issues arising from a physical altercation in December 2022 for which he was later acquitted. He had legal qualifications, was assisted by a former police superintendent from December 2023, contacted Citizens Advice and a retired HR professional, and robustly appealed his dismissal mentioning employment tribunals and unfair dismissal. He did not commence ACAS early conciliation until 10 July 2024 (57 days late) and filed his claim on 13 July 2024. He cited his PTSD, ignorance of time limits, hope the appeal would succeed, and concern for the charity's reputation as reasons for delay.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim as presented out of time. The judge found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented his claim in time given his legal education, access to multiple sources of expert advice before the deadline, and his robust pursuit of an internal appeal. His PTSD, while genuine, did not prevent him from completing the appeal process and therefore would not have prevented submission of an ET1. The 57-day delay was also not a reasonable further period.
Practical note
Even claimants with PTSD or other health conditions will not succeed on a reasonable practicability argument if they have legal education, access to competent advisors, and demonstrated capacity to pursue internal processes during the limitation period.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2305565/2024
- Decision date
- 24 July 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Migrant Help UK
- Sector
- charity
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- in house
Employment details
- Role
- Senior Modern Slavery Care Advisor
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep