Case 1401923/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Taylor v Stagecoach Devon Ltd t/a Stagecoach Southwest — 2020
- Case reference
- 1401923/2020
- Decision date
- 1 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Taylor
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Taylor had previously presented an unfair dismissal claim, but the first claim was rejected on a technical issue because the claim form named the trading name Stagecoach South West rather than the corporate respondent, Stagecoach Devon Limited. The rejection was communicated on 1 April 2020, which was the last day of the primary limitation period. The tribunal considered the second claim form only, applying s.111(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the guidance in Adams v British Telecommunications Plc [2017] ICR 382 EAT.
Employment Judge Smail found that it was not reasonably practicable for the second claim to be presented in time. The claimant had believed throughout that he had already presented a valid claim, had to obtain legal advice during lockdown, and the solicitors were not able to advise until 15 April 2020. He then obtained a new ACAS certificate and issued the second claim the following day. The tribunal accepted that a two-week period to obtain advice and rectify the problem was reasonable in the circumstances.
Accordingly, time was extended to the date the second claim was presented, the claim was not dismissed, and the case was allowed to continue. No merits finding on the underlying unfair dismissal complaint was made and no monetary award was determined.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing on limitation only. The tribunal extended time under s.111(2)(b) ERA 1996, found it was not reasonably practicable to present the second claim in time, and directed that the claim was not dismissed and would continue. The merits of unfair dismissal were not determined in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.111(2)(b) ERA 1996
- Adams v British Telecommunications Plc [2017] ICR 382 EAT
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.