Claimant v Obaseki Solicitors
Outcome
Individual claims
Claimant lacked the necessary qualifying service to bring an unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal noted in an earlier judgment dated 6 March 2024 that the claimant did not have sufficient continuous employment to establish jurisdiction for this claim.
Dismissed for want of jurisdiction as time-barred in the tribunal's judgment of 6 March 2024. The claim was presented approximately 3 months after the statutory time limit expired and the tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time.
Claim dismissed for want of jurisdiction as time-barred. Claimant complained she had been unlawfully deprived of redundancy payment but failed to present the claim within the statutory time limit.
Claim relating to loss of earnings below minimum wage dismissed for want of jurisdiction as time-barred. The claim was presented at least 8 weeks out of time and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the claim in time despite her assertions of illness.
Claim for accrued but unpaid holiday pay dismissed for want of jurisdiction as time-barred. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant, being legally qualified and capable, to have presented her claim within the statutory time limit.
Claim relating to loss of employer pension benefits and contributions dismissed for want of jurisdiction as time-barred. The tribunal applied its earlier findings that the claimant could reasonably have presented her claims in time.
Facts
The claimant was employed by a firm of solicitors and her employment terminated on 27 August 2022. She contacted ACAS in July 2022 but did not present her tribunal claim until 27 February 2023, approximately 3 months after the statutory deadline of 26 November 2022. She brought claims for unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, redundancy pay, unlawful deductions from wages, holiday pay, and pension loss. The claimant is herself legally qualified. She claimed she was unwell during the limitation period but the tribunal found this evidence unreliable and contradicted by her own admissions under cross-examination.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims for want of jurisdiction as they were time-barred. The unfair dismissal claim also failed because the claimant lacked qualifying service. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented her claims in time, noting she was legally qualified, understood she could complain to a tribunal (having contacted ACAS before the deadline), and was capable of simple research to ascertain time limits. Her illness was not sufficient to make presentation of the claim not reasonably feasible.
Practical note
A legally qualified claimant who contacts ACAS during the limitation period will find it very difficult to establish that it was not reasonably practicable to present claims in time, even where some illness is experienced.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8000081/2023
- Decision date
- 14 May 2024
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- legal services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- in house
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No