Claimant v Vasudevamurthy v Alpha Technology Partners Ltd — 2024

The claimant, Miss V Vasudevamurthy, worked for Alpha Technology Partners Limited as a Business Analyst from 22 August 2022 until her dismissal on 16 October 2023. The claim form referred to notice pay, holiday pay and unauthorised deductions from wages. The respondent admitted owing the claimant final salary of £1,675, but said it was unable to pay it. No substantive merits issue was decided because the hearing turned entirely on limitation and jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the claimant first tried to present her claim on 25 February 2024, after ACAS early conciliation that started on 14 December 2023 and ended on 19 January. The claim was rejected because the claim form named Nick Mehat instead of the company named in the ACAS certificate. On reconsideration, the Tribunal held that the original rejection was correct but the defect had been rectified, so the claim was treated as presented on 17 April 2024 under Rule 13(4) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.

Applying the relevant time limits, the Tribunal held that the notice pay claim ran from the effective date of termination on 16 October 2023 and expired on 20 February 2024 after the ACAS extension was added. The holiday pay and unlawful deduction claims ran from 30 November 2023 and expired on 5 April 2024 after the same extension. Because the claim was treated as presented on 17 April 2024, the notice pay claim was 55 days late and the holiday pay and wages claims were 12 days late.

The Tribunal rejected the argument that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claims in time. It found that she knew the facts giving rise to the claim from early December 2023 at the latest, knew the identity of the correct respondent, had started ACAS early conciliation against the correct respondent, and knew of the three month time limit. It held that naming the director instead of the company was a mistake about a fundamental part of the claim, and that the delay after the rejection notice was also not reasonable. The Tribunal therefore held that all claims were out of time and that it lacked jurisdiction to hear them.