Case 1402822/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Cross in person For the v Ms Priscilla Nketiah, employment advocate — 2023
- Case reference
- 1402822/2022
- Decision date
- 20 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hogarth Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Cross in person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Cross was dismissed as a field engineer on 3 August 2021 after suspension connected with his arrest in August 2020. He later presented an unfair dismissal claim on 27 August 2022, outside the normal time limit, which had expired on 17 November 2021 after the early conciliation extension. The preliminary hearing therefore concerned only whether time should be extended under section 111(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal accepted Mr Cross's evidence that a union branch secretary referred him to Peter Kerslake, whom he reasonably believed to be a solicitor. It found that he was told a claim had been submitted on 24 October 2021 and that an email forwarded to him on 18 November 2021, purporting to confirm submission through GOV.UK, was not genuine. The tribunal found that no claim had in fact been presented in October 2021.
Applying the statutory test of whether it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, and considering Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd and Wall's Meat Co v Khan, the tribunal held that the Dedman principle did not prevent Mr Cross from relying on adviser deceit in these circumstances. It found that he had no reason to suspect the deception, that he was entitled to rely on what he was told, and that the delay after he discovered the problem was reasonable. Time was therefore extended and the claim could proceed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary timeliness ruling under section 111(2) ERA 1996: the tribunal extended time because it found it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to be presented in time and that it was presented within a reasonable further period. No merits decision was made. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 111(2) ERA 1996
- section 207B ERA 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Wall's Meat Co v Khan
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.