Case 1401116/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Stephenson of Counsel For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1401116/2020
- Decision date
- 20 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hargrove
- Venue
- Bristol BY CVP PLUS
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr D Stephenson of Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Michelle Feehally-Fisher, had worked for the respondent since 10 August 1998 and had been signed off sick with work-related stress from 27 November 2018 until May 2019. She was given written redundancy consultation on 22 May 2019, notice of redundancy on 30 July 2019, her appeal was unsuccessful on 26 September 2019, and her employment ended on 22 November 2019 after the notice period was extended to allow a search for alternative posts. Her ET1 was received on 5 March 2020, after the primary limitation date of 2 February 2020.
On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal applied the reasonable practicability test in section 111(2) ERA 1996. It found that the claimant knew of her right to bring a tribunal claim and knew the three-month time limit, had repeatedly been told in writing that the termination date was 22 November 2019, and could and should have checked that date. The tribunal did not accept that her mistaken belief about the termination date, or any view that she needed to complete the grievance process first, made it not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time.
On the disability discrimination claims, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was disabled at the material time by reason of depression, but refused to extend time under section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010. It applied the factors identified in British Coal Corporation v Keeble and the other authorities cited in its reasons, noted that the respondent had shown no specific prejudice from a claim only 12 days out of time and that the claimant would have no remedy if the claims were excluded, but held that the explanation for delay was rejected because it was principally due to the claimant's failure to check the dismissal date rather than her condition or any wrongly given advice. The disability-related claims were therefore dismissed as out of time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Time-bar ruling only. The tribunal held that it was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the unfair dismissal claim within the three-month limit from the effective date of termination. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Time-bar ruling on the disability-related complaints pleaded in the ET1 and addressed in counsel's submissions, including harassment, direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The tribunal refused to extend time on the just and equitable basis. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996 reasonable practicability test
- s.123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 just and equitable extension
- Walls Meat Company Ltd v Khan
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- Afolabi
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v Caston
- Habinteg UKEAT 0274/14
- Edimobi UKEAT 0180/16
- Chohan v Derby Law Centre
- Bahous v Pizza Express Restaurant Ltd
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.