Case 1401087/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr D Hogg of the Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1401087/2021
- Decision date
- 13 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on whether the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim was presented in time. The claimant had been employed by Serco Limited as a Regional Operations Manager from 12 June 2006 until dismissal by reason of redundancy effective on 28 August 2020. She did not appeal. She first contacted ACAS on 28 October 2020, received an Early Conciliation Certificate on 28 November 2020, and presented the tribunal claim on 11 March 2021.
The tribunal held that the ordinary three-month time limit under section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 expired at midnight on 27 November 2020, and that the early conciliation provisions under section 207B extended that deadline to 28 December 2020. The claim was therefore at least 10 weeks out of time. The tribunal referred to the authorities on the meaning of "reasonably practicable", including Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea BC, Porter v Bandridge Ltd, Wall’s Meat Co v Khan, London Underground Ltd v Noel, Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances, Cullinane v Balfour Beattie Engineering Services Ltd, and Wolverhampton University v Elbeltagi.
On the facts found, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had researched the position, knew there were time limits, and knew she needed an ACAS Early Conciliation Certificate. It rejected her contention that she had been confused into thinking no tribunal claim needed to be issued until conciliation was complete, and found there was no impediment preventing her from presenting the claim in time. It also found that, even if that were wrong, she had been told by ACAS in January 2021 to submit the claim because of the time limits, but still did not do so until 11 March 2021. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed as out of time.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claim was presented out of time. It found it had been filed on 11 March 2021, after the limitation period had expired on 28 December 2020 following early conciliation. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- s.207B ERA 1996
- reasonably practicable test
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea BC
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Wall’s Meat Co v Khan
- London Underground Ltd v Noel
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances
- Cullinane v Balfour Beattie Engineering Services Ltd
- Wolverhampton University v Elbeltagi
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.