Mr T Deal (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2019

The claimant brought a single unfair dismissal claim arising from his summary dismissal on 27 October 2018. The claim was presented on 14 March 2019. The tribunal first dealt with whether it could determine the limitation issue without an interpreter and decided, on the basis of the claimant's written statement, the documents, and submissions, that it could fairly do so. The respondent did not seek to cross-examine the claimant, and the tribunal therefore proceeded to consider time limits only.

Applying section 111 ERA 1996 and the authorities cited by both parties, including Williams Ryan and Palmer, the tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the complaint within the primary time limit, as extended by early conciliation. The tribunal accepted that the claimant said he did not know there was a time limit, but found that ignorance was not reasonable in all the circumstances. In reaching that conclusion, it took account of the claimant being accompanied by a union representative at the dismissal meeting, his indication that he intended to consult a solicitor, and the fact that he did not explain why he waited from October until January before speaking to ACAS.

The tribunal also found that, even if it had not been reasonably practicable to lodge the claim in time, the claim was not presented within such further period as was reasonable. After the claimant received clear advice from ACAS on 7 March 2019, he still waited about a week before lodging the claim, and the tribunal held that he did not adequately explain that delay. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and the tribunal did not reach the substantive merits of the dismissal decision.