In person For the v Respondent — 2024

Mr Edwards was employed by Severn Trent Water Limited as a Metering Technician from 5 July 2022. His employment ended with effect from 6 October 2022 at a probation review meeting, when the respondent recorded that he had been absent for 56 of the previous 93 working days. He appealed. The appeal process continued into January 2023 and led to an offer of reinstatement subject to attendance and reporting conditions, which he did not accept. He then presented an unfair dismissal claim on 2 March 2023 after starting ACAS early conciliation on 21 February 2023 and receiving the certificate on 24 February 2023.

The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim was out of time under s.111(2) ERA 1996. The primary limitation period expired at midnight on 5 January 2023, so the later ACAS process did not extend time because it started after the primary limit had already expired. The claimant relied on ignorance of the procedure and on having assumed that time ran from the appeal outcome, but the tribunal found that he knew about ACAS and the Employment Tribunal, had internet access, and could have researched the position earlier. It also held that the running of time was not suspended by the appeal process.

Applying the "reasonably practicable" test and the authorities it cited, including Wall's Meat Co v Khan, Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea BC, London Underground Ltd v Noel, London International College v Sen and Cullinane v Balfour Beattie Engineering Services Ltd, the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. In the alternative, it held that the claim was not brought within a further reasonable period because there was still about a month's delay before ACAS early conciliation began. The tribunal therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal claim and also dismissed the later application to amend the claim to add a reasonable-adjustments allegation under the Equality Act 2010, because there was no extant claim to amend.