Case 1804267/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Armah v Anchor Hanover Group — 2020
- Case reference
- 1804267/2019
- Decision date
- 4 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Matthews Representation
- Venue
- In Chambers
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Armah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Armah brought complaints of unfair dismissal and breach of contract for notice pay after being summarily dismissed on 26 February 2019. She contacted ACAS on 10 May 2019, the Early Conciliation Certificate was issued on 9 June 2019, and the claim form was presented on 6 August 2019.
The Tribunal found that the ordinary three-month time limits would have expired on 25 May 2019, and that the ACAS early conciliation provisions extended time to 9 July 2019. The claims were therefore presented nearly one month late.
The Tribunal accepted that Ms Armah had little, if any, knowledge of the applicable time limits, but found that she had entrusted presentation of the claims to solicitors. The solicitors' failure to present the claims in time did not make timely presentation not reasonably practicable, and there were no exceptional circumstances. The Tribunal therefore concluded it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal and breach of contract complaints, and dismissed them.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the complaint was presented outside the statutory time limit and the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim for notice pay was dismissed because it was presented outside the statutory time limit and the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- article 7 Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- s.207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- article 8B Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- reasonably practicable test
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Palmer & Anor v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- London Underground v Noel
- Theobald v Royal Bank of Scotland plc
- Marks and Spencer PLC v Williams-Ryan
- Cullinane v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services Ltd & Anor
- Northamptonshire County Council v Entwhistle
- Sterling v United Learning Trust
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.