Cases6001341/2025

Claimant v Durham County Council

29 May 2025Before Employment Judge L RobertsonNewcastleremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

The tribunal found the claim was presented out of time and it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented it within the three-month time limit. The claimant took no steps to discover time limits or how to make a claim during the primary time limit because he expected his appeal to succeed. Once the appeal failed, he was able to consult CAB and ACAS with family help, demonstrating he could have taken these simple steps earlier. The claim was dismissed as out of time.

Facts

Mr Shield was summarily dismissed from his role as Gardener with Durham County Council on 23 August 2024 after over 10 years' service. He appealed the dismissal expecting to be reinstated, and the appeal was heard on 28 November 2024 but was unsuccessful. After his dismissal he suffered mental health difficulties and was prescribed anti-depressants. Following the failed appeal, he sought advice from CAB and contacted ACAS for early conciliation starting 18 December 2024. He presented his unfair dismissal claim on 14 January 2025, well outside the three-month time limit which expired on 22 November 2024.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the claim as out of time. Employment Judge Robertson found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented his claim within the three-month time limit. Although the claimant had mental health difficulties and limited IT skills, the tribunal found he took no steps to discover time limits during the primary period because he expected his appeal to succeed. Once the appeal failed, he was able to consult advisors and present a claim with family help, demonstrating these simple steps could have been taken earlier.

Practical note

Expecting an internal appeal to succeed is not a reasonable excuse for failing to investigate tribunal time limits, even where a claimant has mental health difficulties and limited IT skills but has access to family support and free advice services.

Legal authorities cited

Dedman v British Building & Engineering [1974] ICR 53Cygnet Behavioural Health Limited v Britton [2022] EAT 108Asda v Kauser [UKEAT/0165/07]

Statutes

Employment Rights Act 1996 s.207BEmployment Rights Act 1996 s.111(2)

Case details

Case number
6001341/2025
Decision date
29 May 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
public sector
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Gardener
Service
10 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No