Mr M Schofield v Trios Facilities Management — 2021

The claimant, Mr M Schofield, had been employed by Trios Facilities Management Limited for about ten years as a compliance engineer and was dismissed with effect from 14 August 2020 on redundancy grounds. He brought an unfair dismissal claim, and the preliminary issue was whether time should be extended because the ET1 was not validly presented within the normal three-month time limit. The parties agreed the limitation date, after ACAS Early Conciliation, was 5 January 2021.

Mr Schofield first attempted to present his claim on 2 January 2021, but it was rejected because the respondent named in the ET1 did not match the name on the ACAS certificate. The tribunal later treated the claim as presented on 4 February 2021, about a month out of time, and considered whether it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented earlier. The tribunal referred to s.111(2) ERA 1996 and the authorities cited by the parties, including Dedman, Porter, Adams and Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan.

The tribunal accepted that the error was genuine and unintentional. It found that Mr Schofield had been confused by the form, that the respondent was in a state of flux after his dismissal and a company voluntary arrangement, and that he had been trying to ensure the claim reached someone at the respondent company. It also noted that he had no formal legal advice and no previous experience of such claims, and that he acted immediately to correct the error once notified by the tribunal.

On that basis, the tribunal concluded that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim in time and granted the application to extend time under s.111(2)(b) ERA 1996. The judgment does not decide the substantive unfair dismissal claim and records no monetary award.