Mr Ahmed Allem v Babonbo Ltd — 2026

Mr Ahmed Allem brought claims against Babonbo Ltd for unfair dismissal contrary to section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, unauthorised deduction of wages contrary to section 13 of that Act, and breach of contract under article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. After accounting for ACAS early conciliation, the single ET1 containing those claims was presented four days after the applicable three-month limitation periods had expired.

The Tribunal examined why the claims had been presented late. Mr Allem had been represented by a solicitor before and after presentation of the claim, and that solicitor had signed the ET1. Mr Allem did not know the applicable time limit and had relied upon his legal adviser. Although he had been ill following dismissal and had genuinely hoped to negotiate a resolution, the Tribunal found that neither circumstance caused the late presentation. His genuine surprise that the claims were late was accepted.

Applying Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Limited and T Mobile (UK) Ltd v Singleton, the Tribunal held that a claimant who consulted a skilled adviser could not claim reasonable ignorance of the time limit because the adviser failed to give proper advice. The adviser's failure to ensure timely presentation was therefore fixed upon Mr Allem, and the Tribunal found no factual basis on which to distinguish the binding case law. The statutory requirement that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claims in time was not met, so the Tribunal could not extend time.

The Tribunal consequently held that it lacked jurisdiction and struck out all three claims under rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 for no prospect of success. It also recorded that the claims were not well founded and were dismissed. No monetary remedy was awarded or addressed.