Case 2413361/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Samuel v Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust — 2021
- Case reference
- 2413361/2020
- Decision date
- 13 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Samuel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing on 8 April 2021, Employment Judge Buchanan considered whether Miss Samuel's unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims, presented on 21 August 2020, were in time. The accepted effective date of termination was 21 May 2020, so the ordinary limitation period expired on 20 August 2020 unless it was extended by the early conciliation provisions. The claimant said she had relied on her union to file the ET1, and the respondent argued the claim was one day late.
The tribunal held that the early conciliation certificate relied on with the ET1 covered 11 May 2020 to 15 May 2020 and related to the same matter that later led to the dismissal. Applying section 207B(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and article 8B(3) of the 1994 Order, the judge added the four days between day after day A and day B to the limitation period, extending the deadline to 24 August 2020. On that basis, the claim form filed on 21 August 2020 was in time and the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear both claims.
The judge reviewed HMRC v Serra Garau and preferred the ordinary meaning of the statutory wording, noting that the legislation did not confine the excluded period to days falling within the primary limitation period. In the alternative, if that conclusion were wrong, the judge said the claimant had not shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, because the late filing resulted from her advisers' error and that fault was attributable to the claimant. The judge also said that, had it been necessary to decide the point, the one-day delay would have been within a reasonable further period.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary ruling only: the tribunal found the claim was presented in time and had jurisdiction to hear it; merits were not decided. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Preliminary ruling only: the tribunal found the claim was presented in time and had jurisdiction to hear it; merits were not decided. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- s.207B ERA 1996
- Article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- Article 8B of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- not reasonably practicable
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Times Newspapers Ltd v O'Regan
- HMRC v Serra Garau
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.