Cases4106258/2024

Claimant v Northlink Ferries Serco Ferries (Guernsey) Limited

7 May 2025Before Employment Judge A KempScotlandremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

The claim was struck out for being outside the tribunal's jurisdiction under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the claim within the primary three-month time limit, and even if not, the claim was not presented within a reasonable period thereafter.

Facts

The claimant worked as a security officer on ferries from August 2017 until his summary dismissal for gross misconduct on 8 February 2024 (effective date of termination 15 February 2024 when he received the dismissal letter). He was suspended in December 2023, attended disciplinary hearings in January 2024, and appealed the dismissal decision which was rejected on 1 March 2024. The claimant suffered mental health difficulties following his dismissal, including anxiety and stress. He did not commence ACAS early conciliation until 20 June 2024 and did not present his claim until 24 July 2024, well outside the three-month time limit.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim as being outside its jurisdiction under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judge found that despite the claimant's mental health difficulties, medical evidence from a consultant neuropsychologist showed he had no significant cognitive impairments and was capable of functioning. The claimant's own actions—appealing his dismissal, applying for benefits, and conducting his affairs—contradicted his claim that he was unable to present a timeous claim. Even if it had not been reasonably practicable to claim in time, the unexplained delay of over three weeks after receiving legal advice meant the claim was not presented within a reasonable period.

Practical note

Medical evidence of stress and anxiety alone is insufficient to establish that it was not reasonably practicable to present a claim in time; tribunals will consider all evidence including the claimant's actual conduct and cognitive functioning, and unexplained delays after receiving legal advice will defeat arguments that a claim was presented within a reasonable period.

Legal authorities cited

Dedman v British Building & Engineering Appliances Ltd [1974] ICR 53Howlett Marine Services Ltd v Bowlam [2001] IRLR 201Cullinane v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services Ltd UKEAT/0537/10Inchcape Retail Ltd v Shelton EAT1042/19Gisda CYF v Barratt [2010] IRLR 1073Porter v Bandridge Ltd [1978] IRLR 271Palmer and Saunders v Southend on Sea Borough Council [1984] IRLR 119Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan [1979] ICR 52Marks and Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan [2005] IRLR 562Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy [2019] EWCA Civ 2490Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd v Britton [2022] EAT 18Chourafi v London United Busways Ltd 2006 EWCA Civ 689Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser UKEAT/0165/07Schulz v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd [1999] ICR 1202

Statutes

Employment Rights Act 1996 s.207BEmployment Rights Act 1996 s.111Employment Rights Act 1996 s.97Employment Rights Act 1996 s.94

Case details

Case number
4106258/2024
Decision date
7 May 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
transport
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Security role on vessels
Service
7 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep