Mr James Lewis v Sofidel UK Ltd — 2022

This was a preliminary hearing on whether Mr James Lewis's unfair dismissal claim had been presented within the statutory three-month time limit. The Respondent applied to strike out the claim under Rule 37, relying on section 111(2)(a) and (b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal recorded that Mr Lewis had been dismissed on 22 March 2021, that the latest date for presentation was 21 June 2021, and that there was no ACAS early conciliation extension because the EC notification and certificate were both dated 17 May 2021.

The tribunal heard evidence from Mr Lewis, his brother Mr Brennan, and his uncle by marriage Mr Dimaio. It accepted their account on the balance of probabilities and found that the ET1 was ready in early June 2021, that an attempted electronic submission over the weekend of 5/6 June failed because the document exceeded 2500 words, and that Mr Dimaio then took the papers to Cardiff Employment Tribunal on 10 June 2021. The tribunal accepted that access to the building was restricted, that the tribunal counters were closed, and that the envelope containing the ET1 and covering letter was handed to a postman entering the building.

The tribunal also relied on the later telephone contacts and text messages. It found that on 11 June 2021 the Claimant and Mr Brennan were told by the tribunal office that the ET1 had been received and stamped 10 June 2021, and that on 9 July 2021 the tribunal again confirmed that it had the claim and was awaiting processing. The tribunal described what later happened as an anomaly, but accepted the Claimant's explanation that he did not chase the matter again sooner because he had been told there was a six to eight week delay in processing claims during the Covid period.

Applying the authorities cited, including Hammond v Haigh Castle and Co Ltd, Consignia plc v Sealy, Post Office v Moore, and Software Box Ltd v Gannon, the tribunal held that the claim was presented when it was received by the tribunal. It therefore found that the ET1 was presented on 10 June 2021 and refused the Respondent's strike-out application. No remedy was determined because the merits of the unfair dismissal claim were not heard at this hearing.