Mr Oliver Hughes v Stratford on Avon District Council — 2020

This was a preliminary hearing on limitation and jurisdiction for Mr Oliver Hughes's constructive unfair dismissal claim against Stratford on Avon District Council. The effective date of termination was 29 March 2019. The Tribunal accepted that ACAS had told the Claimant on 2 August 2019 that the Respondent did not wish to continue conciliation and that a certificate would be issued, but the Claimant said he did not receive the emailed certificate sent that day.

The Tribunal found as a fact that the ACAS certificate sent on 2 August 2019 was not received in the Claimant's inbox, and accepted his evidence that he only obtained it when ACAS resent it on 4 September 2019. It held, however, that for the purpose of calculating Day B under section 207B ERA 1996 and rule 9 of the Early Conciliation Regulations, the certificate was deemed received on the day it was sent. On that basis, the claim time limit expired on 2 September 2019 and the claim presented on 5 September 2019 was out of time.

The Tribunal then considered whether it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time. It accepted the Claimant's evidence that he had been diagnosed with stress earlier in 2019, had recently started his own business, and was dealing with difficult family circumstances involving his six-year-old son being assessed for autism. It also accepted that the Claimant understood from his research that he had one month from receipt of the certificate, and that he waited for ACAS to send it before taking the next step. The Tribunal held that, although the deeming provision applied to the time-limit calculation, it did not apply when considering an extension under section 111(2)(b) ERA 1996, and it would be illogical and unjust to treat it as reasonably practicable to bring the claim when the certificate had not in fact been received.

The Tribunal therefore concluded that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to have been brought in time and that it was brought within a further reasonable period. The Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to hear the Claimant's unfair dismissal claim. No merits findings or monetary remedy were determined at this hearing, and a further preliminary hearing was listed to identify the issues and make case management orders.