Cases1404334/2021

Claimant v NHS Somerset Clinical Commissioning Group

2 July 2025Before Employment Judge Le GrysBristolremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Constructive Dismissalstruck out

The tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim within the time limit as she had legal and union representation from an early stage, was aware that procedural steps and time limits existed, and should have undertaken due diligence to check the deadlines. The claim was therefore out of time and could not proceed.

Facts

The claimant, a nurse employed from 2014-2021, resigned on 24 January 2021 citing constructive dismissal after alleged bullying to take on a band 8 lead role and stress-related absences. She had legal and union representation from early 2021. She contacted ACAS on 8 July 2021 (within 3 months) receiving a certificate on 19 August 2021, but mistakenly believed this preserved her rights indefinitely. After receiving her grievance outcome on 5 November 2021, she contacted ACAS again and filed her claim on 10 November 2021, approximately 7.5 weeks out of time.

Decision

The tribunal struck out the claim as out of time. Despite the claimant's genuine belief that ACAS notification was sufficient, the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. The claimant had legal and union representation from an early stage, drafted her resignation letter in contemplation of proceedings, was aware time limits existed, and initiated ACAS conciliation within the time limit, demonstrating knowledge of procedural requirements. She should have undertaken due diligence to check the specific deadlines.

Practical note

Union or legal representation from an early stage, combined with demonstrated awareness of time limits and procedural steps, will make it very difficult to establish that it was not reasonably practicable to present a claim in time, even where the claimant holds a genuine but mistaken belief about the effect of ACAS early conciliation.

Legal authorities cited

Marks and Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan [2005] ICR 1293Miah v Axis Security Services Ltd UKEAT/0290/17/LADedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd [1974] ICR 53Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan [1979] ICR 52Porter v Bandridge Ltd [1978] ICR 943Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1984] ICR 372Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser EAT 0165/07Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton [1991] ICR 488

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.111(2A)ERA 1996 s.111(2)

Case details

Case number
1404334/2021
Decision date
2 July 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
nurse
Service
7 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister