Mr H Ayoola v Food Standards Agency — 2020

The claimant brought a single unfair dismissal claim. The preliminary hearing was to decide whether the tribunal had jurisdiction in light of the date of presentation. The parties agreed that the effective date of termination was 5 September 2019, so the primary limitation period expired on 4 December 2019. The claimant contacted ACAS on 12 and 15 December 2019 and presented the ET1 on 13 February 2020, which was outside the time limit.

The tribunal applied section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the "reasonably practicable" test, referring to Palmer and Or v Southend-on-Sea BC and Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan. It found that the claimant was aware of his right to bring an unfair dismissal claim, although he did not know about the time limit. The judge found that his mental health did not amount to a debilitating illness or significant cognitive impairment and that he was not incapacitated between dismissal and expiry of the limitation period.

The tribunal also found that the claimant had several opportunities to make timely enquiries about the time limit and the process, including visits to the Haringey Law Centre, support from his union, and contact with ACAS on 4 December 2019. It found that his ignorance of the time limit was not reasonably held and that he could have understood the time limit and its interaction with early conciliation if he had opened the ACAS leaflet link sent to him. The tribunal concluded that it had been reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and struck it out for lack of jurisdiction.