Claimant v Tesco Stores Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as it was presented outside the three month time limit. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the claim in time despite wrong advice from solicitors. The claimant was actively seeking advice within the time limit and was capable of presenting his claim.
Claim for unpaid wages during suspension period was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as it was presented outside the three month time limit. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the claim in time, applying the same reasoning as for the unfair dismissal claim.
Facts
The claimant was dismissed with immediate effect on 20 July 2023 and appealed, receiving an outcome letter on 19 September 2023. He contacted ACAS on 22 October 2024, approximately one year out of time, and presented claims for unfair dismissal and unpaid wages on 24 October 2024. The claimant argued he was wrongly advised by two solicitors that he could not bring a claim until a connected criminal investigation concluded. He had actively sought advice from multiple sources including Citizens Advice within the original three month time limit.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed both claims for lack of jurisdiction, finding it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented his claims in time. Despite being a non-native English speaker, the claimant had been capable of actively seeking advice from multiple sources and was aware of his rights. Either he misunderstood advice to wait for his appeal outcome, or he was wrongly advised - but in either case it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time.
Practical note
Wrong advice from professional advisers about time limits does not make it not reasonably practicable to present a claim in time if the claimant was otherwise capable of taking steps to present the claim, as shown by their active advice-seeking.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6016216/2024
- Decision date
- 2 April 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No