Case 2305170/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the First v Ms A Vance (HR Business Partner) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2305170/2019
- Decision date
- 24 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams-Parish
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the First
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a single unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found that his employment ended on 31 May 2019, not 27 June 2019 as stated in the claim form, because he had been paid in lieu of notice. Applying the three-month limit under s.111 ERA 1996, the deadline for presentation was 30 August 2019. The claim was not presented until 31 October 2019, so it was out of time.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had appealed his dismissal and received the appeal outcome on or about 24 July 2019. It also accepted that he had contacted ACAS in August, but found that he had not started the ACAS Early Conciliation process at that point, so there was no extension to the limitation period. The tribunal found that he could have made enquiries about the time limit and that, even after being told by ACAS about the three-month limit, it remained reasonably practicable for him to present his claim in time.
The claimant relied on the demands of parenting, caring for his father, and dealing with his appeal. The tribunal accepted that those were real pressures, but found they did not make it not reasonably practicable to present the claim within time. It also found that the further delay of about two months after the expiry of the primary limitation period was not reasonable in all the circumstances. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed on a preliminary issue: the tribunal found the claim was presented out of time, it was reasonably practicable to bring it within the three-month limit, and the tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.111 ERA 1996
- reasonably practicable
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.