Claimant v Artfarm Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim was for automatically unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996 (whistleblowing). Tribunal found claimant failed to demonstrate it was not reasonably practicable to present claim in time. Claimant had internet access, contacted multiple advisers, and was aware of tribunal process. His alleged reliance on faulty advice from Quantum Claims did not excuse delay. Struck out for want of jurisdiction.
Claim related to an incident on 23 February 2024 where claimant alleged double standards in being criticised for language used by female colleagues. Claim presented in January 2025, well outside the three-month time limit. Tribunal found claim weak on merits and no just and equitable reason to extend time. Claimant had no impediment to bringing claim on time. Struck out for want of jurisdiction.
Claim was for failure to make reasonable adjustments, specifically redeployment to another site due to workplace conflict affecting claimant's mental health (depression and anxiety). Request made in March 2024. Claim presented January 2025, well outside time limit. Tribunal found no just and equitable reason to extend time, noting claim appeared weak and claimant had no impediment to bringing it on time. Struck out for want of jurisdiction.
Facts
Claimant was employed as a linen porter at respondent's hotel from December 2022 until dismissal on 17 May 2024 after 17 months' service. He was dismissed following a disciplinary process for alleged breach of confidentiality and reputational damage, having told colleagues he would take the company to court. Claimant suffered from depression and anxiety during this period and contacted numerous solicitors seeking representation but was unable to secure it. He spoke to an adviser at Quantum Claims on the day of dismissal who allegedly told him he had no claim due to lack of two years' service. Claimant did not contact ACAS for early conciliation until 3 January 2025, over seven months after dismissal, claiming a customer in the shop where he then worked prompted him to pursue a claim.
Decision
The tribunal struck out all claims for want of jurisdiction due to being presented significantly out of time. For the unfair dismissal/whistleblowing claim, the tribunal found the claimant failed to demonstrate it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim on time. He had internet access, was aware of tribunal processes, and his reliance on allegedly faulty advice was not reasonable. For the discrimination claims, the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time, noting the claims appeared weak on their merits, related to events even earlier than the dismissal, and there was no impediment preventing the claimant from bringing claims on time.
Practical note
Claimants must act promptly even when unable to secure legal representation; general ignorance of time limits or reliance on allegedly faulty advice from a single adviser will not excuse significant delays where the claimant had access to information and resources, particularly when they demonstrated awareness of tribunal processes by contacting multiple organisations.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8000112/2025
- Decision date
- 30 April 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Artfarm Limited
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Linen Porter
- Service
- 1 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No