Case 1401203/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v B.L.I.S.S Residential Care Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1401203/2021
- Decision date
- 11 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs T Fellowes brought an unfair dismissal claim against B.L.I.S.S Residential Care Ltd after her employment ended with an effective date of termination of 8 October 2020. The tribunal dealt first with limitation and jurisdiction. It noted that ACAS early conciliation began on 4 January 2021 and that the early conciliation certificate issued on 10 February 2021. The claimant's solicitor sent the claim form by first class post on 11 February 2021, but it was addressed to Bristol Employment Tribunal rather than the Leicester central office required by the presidential practice direction.
The judge found that the solicitor, Miss Rolls, believed she had sent the claim to the correct address and did not realise that using the wrong office meant the claim would be rejected and treated as not filed. When the error was pointed out in a letter dated 10 March 2021, she checked the file, dictated a corrected letter, and it was sent the following day. The tribunal accepted that she acted promptly and reasonably in the circumstances, including the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, remote working, furlough, reduced support staff, and delays in the tribunal system.
Applying the reasonable practicability test under s.111(2)(b) ERA 1996, and referring to the authorities cited, the tribunal held that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to have been filed in time and that it was filed within a reasonable time after the mistake was discovered. The tribunal therefore found that the claim was in time and that the Employment Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear it. This judgment did not determine the merits of the unfair dismissal claim and recorded no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim was presented in time under s.111(2)(b) ERA 1996 and that it had jurisdiction. No merits decision was made in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.111(2)(b) ERA 1996
- s.207B ERA 1996
- reasonable practicability test
- Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy
- Marks and Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Dedman v British Building & Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Adams v British Telecommunications plc
- Software Box Ltd v Gannon
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.