Claimant v Phone Masters Limited (in creditors voluntary liquidation)
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant failed to satisfy the requirements of s.164 ERA 1996. She did not make a claim in writing to her employer, nor bring a tribunal claim, within 6 months of dismissal. Although she filed within 12 months, the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time as she had no sufficient reason for the delay between receiving the Insolvency Service refusal letter on 25 January 2024 and filing her claim on 7 March 2024. Additionally, the claimant's own evidence was that she intended only to challenge the Insolvency Service decision, not to bring a claim against the first respondent.
Facts
The claimant was a director of Phone Masters Limited, dismissed on 26 May 2023. The company entered creditors voluntary liquidation on 14 November 2023. The claimant applied to the Insolvency Service for a redundancy payment on 29 November 2023, which was rejected on 25 January 2024 because she had not made a claim in writing to her employer or to an employment tribunal within six months of dismissal as required by s.164 ERA 1996. She filed her tribunal claim on 7 March 2024, naming both her former employer and the Secretary of State.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's redundancy payment claim. It found she had not satisfied the requirements of s.164 ERA 1996 as she had not made a claim in writing to her employer or brought a tribunal claim within six months of dismissal. Although she filed within 12 months, the tribunal concluded it was not just and equitable to extend time because she had no sufficient reason for the delay between receiving the Insolvency Service decision on 25 January 2024 and filing her claim on 7 March 2024. The claimant's own evidence was that she only intended to challenge the Insolvency Service decision, not to bring a claim against her former employer.
Practical note
A claimant must strictly comply with the time limits in s.164 ERA 1996 to preserve the right to a redundancy payment, and the just and equitable test for late claims requires clear evidence of reasons for delay at every stage.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2401390/2024
- Decision date
- 7 January 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- telecoms
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Role
- Director
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No