Mr Walker of Counsel. For the v Respondent — 2020

This was a preliminary hearing on limitation only. The claimant presented her unfair dismissal claim on 5 August 2019. The tribunal accepted that the effective date of termination was 11 February 2019, when she was first notified of summary dismissal, rather than 7 May 2019, when her appeal failed. On that basis, the claim had to be presented within three months unless it was not reasonably practicable to do so.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had a history of depression, that she had been treated in 2018, and that she was generally unaware of tribunal rights and time limits until later in the process. It also accepted that she was born in the Philippines, English was her second language, and she had lived in the United Kingdom only since 2013. However, it found that those factors did not establish that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within three months of 11 February 2019.

A central issue was the role of the trade union representative, Dino. The tribunal found that the claimant was relying on the trade union to take matters forward to the Employment Tribunal if she was dismissed, and that she contacted the union after dismissal but the claim was not brought in time. The tribunal treated the union as a skilled adviser for these purposes and applied the Dedman principle, concluding that the claimant was bound by the union's failure to present the claim within time. It distinguished the claimant's reliance on the trade union from the ACAS position in the authority relied on by the claimant.

The tribunal therefore held that the claim was presented out of time and that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time. It struck out the unfair dismissal claim under section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. No substantive liability or remedy findings were made beyond the limitation ruling.