Cases6014245/2024

Claimant v Blueprints Housing Action Rochdale

21 March 2025Before Employment Judge ThompsonManchesterremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to bring his unfair dismissal claim in time. Despite the claimant suffering a stroke on the date of dismissal, he was able to engage with the ACAS early conciliation process between March and April 2024 with help from his trade union representative. The tribunal concluded that a similar level of effort would have been required to submit the brief ET1 form by the April 2024 deadline. The claim was therefore dismissed as out of time.

Facts

The claimant was employed by a housing charity from August 2016 until dismissed on 19 December 2023, the same day he suffered a stroke. He engaged ACAS early conciliation in March-April 2024 with help from his trade union representative. The primary time limit for his unfair dismissal claim expired on 29 April 2024, but he did not file his ET1 until 7 October 2024, over five months late. The claimant argued his stroke and subsequent health issues (hospitalization until February 2024, bed-bound until May 2024, vision problems, cognitive issues/brain fog) prevented timely filing.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the claim as out of time, finding it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have brought his claim by the deadline. The judge noted that the claimant was able to engage with the ACAS process in March-April 2024 with union help when his condition was worse than in October, the ET1 was very brief requiring minimal information, and the claimant provided no medical evidence and vague testimony about how his symptoms specifically prevented him from instructing his union representative to file the claim.

Practical note

Illness alone is insufficient to extend time limits for unfair dismissal claims without medical evidence and clear explanation of how symptoms specifically prevented filing, particularly where the claimant demonstrated ability to engage with related processes during the limitation period.

Legal authorities cited

Cullinane v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services 5 April 2011Ebay UK Limited v Buzzeo EAT 5.9.2013Schultz v Esso Petroleum Company Limited [1999] IRLR 488Norbert Dentressangle Logistics Ltd v Huston EAT 0011/13

Statutes

Employment Rights Act 1996 s.111(2)

Case details

Case number
6014245/2024
Decision date
21 March 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
charity
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Service
7 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No