Claimant v Provident Personal Credit Limited — 2020

The tribunal dealt with a preliminary issue under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because the claimant's unfair dismissal ET1, presented on 7 May 2020, was common ground to be outside the primary three-month limit following dismissal on 18 December 2019. The issue for determination was whether it had been reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and, if not, whether the claim had been brought within such further period as was reasonable.

The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that she did not know there was any time limit until she received ACAS's email on 23 March 2020. It found her to be a credible witness and accepted that she had made extensive efforts to obtain assistance from her legal expenses insurers, Arc, and the nominated solicitors, Lyons Davidson, while also having dis-instructed EQ Solicitors after being told she could not use them. The tribunal also took account of the impact of the COVID-19 illness affecting the claimant and her daughter, and the practical difficulties caused by lockdown in printing and sending the information requested by Arc.

Although the tribunal did not accept that the claimant's mental health prevented her from managing her affairs, it found that she had taken reasonable steps to seek information about time limits and that the failures of the insurance and legal-advice process meant she was reasonably ignorant of the relevant time limits. Applying section 111 ERA 1996 and the authorities cited, including Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council, Wall's Meat and Trevelyans v Norton, Dedman, Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan and Marks & Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan, the tribunal held that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the primary period.

The tribunal further found that the claimant acted promptly once told by Lyons Davidson on 7 May 2020 to lodge an ET1, and she did so later that day. It therefore concluded that the claim had been presented within a further reasonable period. The judgment did not determine the merits of the unfair dismissal claim or make any monetary award.