Case 1300418/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs P Horsnall v Staffordshire County Council — 2019
- Case reference
- 1300418/2019
- Decision date
- 8 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs P Horsnall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed with effect from 11 October 2018 after a long period of sickness absence. She contacted ACAS in January 2019 and presented her ET1 on 31 January 2019, outside the three-month time limit for unfair dismissal. The preliminary hearing was concerned only with whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint; disability discrimination matters were not determined in this judgment.
The tribunal found that the claimant knew by May 2018 that dismissal was possible and had access to several sources of advice and support, including a trade union representative, a solicitor, her son and her husband. It found that she had opportunities to find out about her rights and that she had contemplated legal recourse, including making a without prejudice settlement offer and discussing going to court.
The tribunal rejected the argument that waiting for the ill-health retirement process justified the delay. It found that the ill-health retirement procedures were not directly relevant to the dismissal time limit, and that even after the claimant said she learned about ACAS on 28 December 2018 there was no good reason for further delay. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because it was out of time and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claim was presented out of time and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time. Disability discrimination issues were not determined in this judgment and were left to separate case management orders. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Cullinane v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services Ltd
- Marks & Spencer Plc v Williams-Ryan
- First West Yorkshire Ltd v Haight
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.