Mr K Murphy v Leos Management Services Limited — 2024

The claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal, unpaid holiday pay, wrongful dismissal and unpaid wages. He accepted that he did not have two years' service, so the unfair dismissal claim was withdrawn, and he confirmed that he was not pursuing unpaid holiday pay, so that claim was also withdrawn. The hearing therefore turned on whether the wrongful dismissal and unlawful deduction claims were presented in time.

The tribunal found that the claimant had been told on 16 January 2023 that his employment would end on notice, and on 19 January he was told he would be on garden leave until 16 March 2023. It held that the letter of 15 February 2023, sent in the course of the disciplinary process, did not extend the employment relationship indefinitely. At the disciplinary meeting on 3 March 2023 the manager said that employment had been terminated with immediate effect without notice or payment in lieu, and the tribunal found those words were clear and unambiguous even though no written dismissal letter followed. The claimant's emails on 3 March and afterwards were treated as showing that he understood he had been summarily dismissed.

Applying the statutory approach, the tribunal said the acceptance theory in Geys did not govern the statutory effective date of termination question. It held that the effective date of termination was 3 March 2023, and that the breach of contract and unlawful deduction claims were subject to the three-month time limits under section 23 of the ERA 1996 and article 7(a) of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. The ET1 was lodged on 15 September 2023, so both claims were out of time. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had some mental health difficulties and a bereavement, but found that it was reasonably practicable to present a claim earlier and that he had chosen to keep chasing written confirmation rather than lodge a protective claim. No monetary award was made.