Case 2304353/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms CM Tobin v Southwater Parish Council – Clerk to the Council (Proper Officer) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2304353/2019
- Decision date
- 20 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms CM Tobin
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing considered on the papers on 19 March 2020, Employment Judge Martin Date dealt only with limitation. The relevant dates were an effective date of termination of 21 May 2019, expiry of the three-month time limit on 20 August 2019, expiry after ACAS early conciliation on 20 September 2019, and presentation of the claim on 24 September 2019. The claimant said she first tried to submit the claim on 10 September 2019 but had internet and computer problems, then emailed and posted the claim to the London South Employment Tribunal on 11 September 2019 before going on holiday. The tribunal returned the claim on 16 September 2019 because it had not been submitted in one of the prescribed ways.
On the unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims, the tribunal applied the reasonably practicable test. It held that it was reasonably practicable to present those claims in time: the claimant had time before her holiday, did not use the prescribed methods, returned from holiday on 18 September 2019, and did not open post until 20 September 2019 when the returned claim notice had already arrived. The tribunal also noted that she remained in contact with her union representative, Mrs Shippen, and that she could have taken further steps to ensure proper presentation. Those claims were dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
For the disability discrimination claim, the tribunal applied the just and equitable test under section 123 of the Equality Act and noted the authorities of Marks & Spencer plc v Williams Ryan, Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link, and O'Brien v Department for Constitutional Affairs. It found that the claim was only a few days late, that the respondent had not identified any prejudice or other reason against extending time, and that, if the claimant's account of being given erroneous advice by tribunal staff was correct, that also pointed towards an extension. Time was therefore extended for the disability discrimination claim, which was allowed to proceed to a further hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal extended time on a just and equitable basis and directed that the claim should proceed to a further hearing; it did not decide the merits. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- reasonably practicable test
- just and equitable test
- Section 123 Equality Act
- Marks & Spencer plc v Williams Ryan [2005] EWCA Civ 470
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link 2003 [IRLR] 434 CA
- O'Brien v Department for Constitutional Affairs [2009] IRLR 294
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.