Cases2404641/2024

Claimant v Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust

7 May 2025Before Employment Judge BarkerManchesterremote video

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalnot determined

This was a preliminary hearing on whether the claim was validly presented. The tribunal found the claim was presented in time by email on 30 November 2023, albeit not by a prescribed method. The tribunal exercised discretion under Rule 6 to waive the non-compliance with the Presidential Practice Direction, considering it just to do so given the claimant's circumstances and the tribunal's administrative error in accepting the claim. The claim may proceed to a full merits hearing.

Facts

The claimant was a healthcare assistant dismissed on 2 October 2023 after long-term absence following a workplace accident. She submitted her ET1 by email on 30 November 2023, having searched online for tribunal email addresses with her son's help. She received an auto-reply stating her email had been 'safely received' and did not read further paragraphs stating claims cannot be accepted by email. The tribunal in London South accepted the claim in error and transferred it to Manchester on 19 March 2024. The respondent challenged the validity of the claim's presentation.

Decision

The tribunal found the claim was presented in time on 30 November 2023 by email, despite this not being a prescribed method under the Presidential Practice Direction. The tribunal exercised discretion under Rule 6 of the ET Rules 2024 to waive the requirement to comply with the Practice Direction, considering it just to do so given the claimant's circumstances, the confusing auto-reply email, and the tribunal's administrative error in accepting the claim. The claim may proceed to a full hearing.

Practical note

Tribunals have discretion under Rule 6 to waive non-compliance with Presidential Practice Directions on claim presentation methods where it is just to do so, particularly where the tribunal itself has accepted the claim and the claimant is a litigant in person who reasonably believed they had complied.

Legal authorities cited

Abel Estate Agent Ltd and ors v Reynolds 2025 EAT 6Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt [2003] ICR 111

Statutes

Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024 Rule 6Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024 Rule 83(2)ERA 1996 s.111(2)

Case details

Case number
2404641/2024
Decision date
7 May 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
hospital healthcare assistant

Claimant representation

Represented
No