Cases8000723/2024

Claimant v WSP UK Limited

3 September 2024Before Employment Judge P O'DonnellScotlandin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

The claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to being lodged out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have lodged the claim within the normal three-month time limit. The claimant's ignorance of his rights was not reasonable as he made no attempt to investigate his options through readily available sources. Even after becoming aware of his rights in January 2024, he delayed a further three months before engaging ACAS Early Conciliation, with no adequate explanation other than trying to find a lawyer.

Facts

The claimant was dismissed on 18 October 2023 for alleged unauthorised absences. After dismissal, he fell into depression and was prescribed medication, adding to existing medical conditions from a prior accident causing considerable pain. He was unaware of his right to bring a tribunal claim until January 2024 when a friend who was an employment lawyer informally advised him during a social conversation. Despite being told of the time limits and urgency, he did not contact ACAS until 19 April 2024, after spending the intervening months trying to find affordable legal representation. He lodged his ET1 claim form on 27 May 2024, over four months after the normal time limit expired.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim for lack of jurisdiction as it was lodged out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been lodged in time because the claimant made no attempt to investigate his rights through readily available sources such as the internet, and his medical conditions did not prevent him from taking the necessary steps. Even after learning of his rights in January 2024, the claimant delayed a further three months with no adequate explanation, and the tribunal would not have extended time even if satisfied about the initial period.

Practical note

A claimant's ignorance of tribunal time limits will not be considered reasonable if they failed to make basic inquiries through readily available sources such as internet searches, and finding legal representation is not a valid reason for delay in lodging a protective claim.

Legal authorities cited

Avon County Council v Haywood-Hicks [1978] IRLR 118Northumberland County Council v Thompson UKEAT/209/07Westward Circuits Ltd v Read [1973] ICR 301Porter v Bandridge Ltd [1978] IRLR 271London International College v Sen [1992] IRLR 292London International College v Sen [1993] IRLR 333Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1984] IRLR 119Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan [1978] IRLR 49

Statutes

Employment Rights Act 1996 s.207BEmployment Rights Act 1996 s.111(2)(b)Employment Rights Act 1996 s.111(2)(a)

Case details

Case number
8000723/2024
Decision date
3 September 2024
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
professional services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Claimant representation

Represented
No