Case 2407554/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Cook v Electricity North West Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2407554/2021
- Decision date
- 26 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McDonald
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Cook
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs L Cook was employed by Electricity North West Limited from 8 September 2003 as a Customer Service Adviser at its Contact Centre. She was dismissed without notice for gross misconduct on 11 December 2020 after Facebook comments she posted on 4 October 2020 about a colleague who had died on 3 October 2020. The respondent said the posts brought it into disrepute and breached its social media policy. The dismissal was appealed, but the appeal was rejected on 21 April 2021.
This hearing concerned whether the unfair dismissal and notice pay claims were in time, and whether there was any basis for the proposed disability discrimination amendment. The claimant started ACAS early conciliation on 26 April 2021 and received the certificate on 6 June 2021. She presented her ET1 on 13 June 2021, which the tribunal found was about three months out of time from the effective date of termination on 11 December 2020.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had mental health difficulties, and that her dismissal likely exacerbated anxiety and depression. However, it found there was no evidence that those difficulties prevented her from progressing the claim. The claimant had been represented by Unison during the disciplinary process, sought advice from a solicitor in December 2020, corresponded with the respondent in January 2021, and was able with Mrs Henderson's help to make enquiries and pursue an appeal. The tribunal therefore found that it was reasonably practicable for her to have brought the unfair dismissal and notice pay claims in time, and that her ignorance of the time limit was not itself reasonable.
The tribunal referred to section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, and the authorities in Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council, Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton, and Marks and Spencer Plc v Williams-Ryan. It also recorded that, if it were wrong on the reasonably practicable issue, it would have found the claim was brought within a reasonable further period. Because the tribunal refused the application to amend to add disability discrimination, the final outcome was that the claim was dismissed in its entirety.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the unfair dismissal complaint within the three-month time limit, and it was in fact presented out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed on the same time-limit basis as the unfair dismissal claim; the tribunal held that the notice pay claim was presented out of time and that it was reasonably practicable to have brought it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton
- Marks and Spencer Plc v Williams-Ryan
- article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- 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.