Mr A Bottomley v Exclusive Rooms Lettings Limited PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2022

Mr A Bottomley was dismissed by letter dated 9 April 2020 with an effective date of termination of 30 April 2020. He presented claims for unfair dismissal and holiday pay on 30 July 2020, after starting ACAS early conciliation that same day. The tribunal held that, for the statutory time limits that apply to these claims, the date of termination was included in the calculation, so the limitation period expired on 29 July 2020. His claims were therefore presented one day late.

The tribunal considered whether it was not reasonably practicable for the claims to be presented in time. It accepted that the claimant had financial pressure after losing his job, did not have his own computer, and had some difficulty accessing legal help during the first COVID-19 lockdown. It also accepted that his brother let him down by not providing a laptop on 29 July 2020. However, it found those matters did not explain the lateness because he had access to a smartphone, telephone, some legal advice before the deadline, and laptop access on 28 and 30 July 2020.

The tribunal rejected the claimant's explanation that he delayed because he believed the respondent should be given an opportunity to respond before he claimed. It found that explanation inconsistent with his 28 July 2020 letter before action, which said he would commence legal action the next day, and it noted that he could have started ACAS early conciliation within time. The tribunal found that the real reason for the late filing was that he wrongly applied the tribunal rules on calculation of time and thought the deadline was 30 July 2020.

Applying the authorities it cited on reasonable practicability and time calculation, the tribunal concluded that the claimant had not made proper enquiries about the correct deadline. It therefore held that it was reasonably practicable to present both claims in time and dismissed the unfair dismissal and holiday pay claims for lack of jurisdiction. It also recorded that, if the second stage had been reached, it would have treated the one-day delay as a further reasonable period.