Case 2213587/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ai Neville Bailey v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2213587/2023
- Decision date
- 18 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Connolly Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ai Neville Bailey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the claimant was verbally dismissed on 7 February 2023 and accepted in cross-examination that this was the date he was dismissed. Applying section 97(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Tribunal concluded that 7 February 2023 was the effective date of termination.
The claimant contacted ACAS on 2 May 2023 and received the Early Conciliation certificate on 4 May 2023. The Tribunal found that the deadline for presenting the ET1 was 4 June 2023, but the ET1 was received on 5 June 2023 after being submitted by post.
The Tribunal did not accept that delays in internal processes justified the late presentation of the claim. It found that the main reason for the delay was advice from Mr Fray, who had advised that the deadline was 6 June 2023. The Tribunal held that Mr Fray was a skilled adviser, that the error in calculating time limits was not a reasonable error, and that it was reasonably practicable to present the unfair dismissal claim in time. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore struck out as out of time because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal decided at a preliminary hearing that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim because it was presented out of time and time was not extended. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 97(1)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Dedman v British Building & Engineering Appliances [1974] ICR 53
- Marks and Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan 2005 ICR 1293, CA
- Palmer and anor v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council 1984 ICR 372, CA
- Northamptonshire County Council v Entwhistle 2010 IRLR 740, EAT
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.