Case 1803625/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Collins v Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council OPEN PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 1803625/2021
- Decision date
- 4 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Rourke Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Collins
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider Miss C Collins' claims, which were brought after the primary three-month limitation period had expired. The Claimant was dismissed on 16 November 2020, so the primary deadline was 15 February 2021. She entered early conciliation on 23 April 2021 and the ACAS certificate was issued on 3 June 2021; the claim form was presented on 2 July 2021, about four and a half months late.
The Tribunal accepted that it was not reasonably practicable for the Claimant to present her claims by 15 February 2021. It found that the combination of her mother's serious illness and death, the dismissal, the failed internal appeal, and the impact on her mental health had the effect she described. The Tribunal found her evidence on that issue compelling and credible, and accepted that she genuinely believed the appeal might resolve matters without the need for a tribunal claim.
The Tribunal then considered whether the claims had been presented within such further period as was reasonable. It accepted that by mid-April 2021 the Claimant was more able to engage with the issue and had consulted solicitors, but held that there was still an additional delay of about two months before the claim was lodged. The Tribunal noted her own knowledge of employment rights and time limits, her research, and the fact that she wrongly thought ACAS conciliation would extend time.
Applying the authorities referred to by the parties, including the Dedman principle and Cullinane, the Tribunal held that any incorrect advice from solicitors could not assist her on the question whether the further period was reasonable. It therefore concluded that, although the initial delay was excused, the claims were not presented within a further reasonable period and were dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction at a preliminary hearing because the claim was presented out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal claim based on protected disclosure dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the claim was presented out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment claim in respect of a protected disclosure dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the claim was presented out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.48(3) and (4) ERA 1996
- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust v Williams
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances
- Cullinane v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services Ltd
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.