In person, assisted by Mrs M McGuire, Friend For the v Cornwallis Care Services Ltd T/a Addison Park Centre — 2021

The claimant, Mrs Cristina Conde, worked for Cornwallis Care Services Ltd at Addison Park Care Home. An incident on 20 April 2018 involving resident JB led to her suspension on 29 April 2018 and dismissal for gross misconduct. The dismissal was confirmed on 16 July 2018, and her appeal was unsuccessful on 28 August 2018. In these proceedings, the tribunal dealt only with whether the unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims were in time; the direct race discrimination claim was left to be addressed separately by case management order.

The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim was out of time. It found that the effective date of termination was 16 July 2018, so the normal three-month limit expired on 15 October 2018. The claimant did not contact ACAS until 25 March 2019 and issued proceedings on 29 April 2019, well after the expiry of the primary limitation period. The tribunal held that she did not obtain any extension under the early conciliation provisions because ACAS was approached after the original time limit had already passed.

Applying the authorities it cited on the meaning of "reasonably practicable", including Palmer and Saunders, Porter v Bandridge, Wall's Meat Co v Khan, London Underground Ltd v Noel, Dedman, Cullinane and Wolverhampton University v Elbeltagi, the tribunal found that it had been reasonably practicable for the claimant to present her claim in time. It relied on the fact that she had access to advice from a criminal defence solicitor, representation from Unison at the investigation and disciplinary stages, and later advice from Citizens Advice. It also found that she gave no satisfactory explanation for the delay, either within the initial three months or in the further period before ACAS contact and issue.

For the same reasons, the tribunal dismissed the breach of contract claim as out of time. It recorded that the claimant had not shown any basis for extending time and had not explained the additional delay after the limitation period expired. No monetary award was made.