Mr A Shelton v Inchcape Retail Limited — 2019

This was a preliminary hearing on limitation only. Mr Shelton had been dismissed for conduct on 21 December 2017, and it was accepted that that date was the effective date of dismissal. The claim form was presented on 2 May 2018, so the question for the tribunal was whether it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the primary time limit under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and if not, whether the claim was then brought within a further reasonable period.

The tribunal accepted Mr Shelton’s evidence that the respondent did not in fact send the dismissal letter on 22 December 2017 as it had asserted. It found that he was waiting for that letter so that he could appeal, that he had not appreciated the basis of the dismissal, and that he did not take advice from a skilled adviser or learn about the tribunal time limit until he contacted ACAS on 25 April 2018. It also accepted that he was focused on the internal appeal process, which was still ongoing because the respondent said it was waiting for a police report about the accident.

Applying the authorities it cited, including Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd, Porter v Bandridge Ltd, Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton, Sodexo Health Care Services Ltd v Harmer and Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Theobald, the tribunal held that Mr Shelton’s ignorance of the time limit was reasonable in the circumstances. It considered that once the appeal response of 20 April 2018 reached him on 23 April 2018, he acted promptly by contacting ACAS two days later, and then filed the claim three working days after early conciliation ended.

The tribunal therefore concluded that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time, and that it was brought within such further period as was reasonable. The complaint of unfair dismissal was held to be in time and was allowed to proceed. No merits decision or remedy was recorded in this judgment.