Mr Colin Cooper v Chatfields Limited (T/A Evans Halshaw) — 2021

The claimant, Mr Colin Cooper, brought claims arising out of his redundancy dismissal by Chatfields Limited (T/A Evans Halshaw). A public preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Speker OBE DL considered whether the unfair dismissal claim had been presented in time and whether the discrimination complaint should be struck out or time extended. The tribunal recorded that Mr Cooper had been made redundant from a pool of three drivers, was told in August 2020 that he would receive a redundancy payment of £2,677.57, and was not required to work his notice, instead being placed on garden leave until 8 October 2020.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal applied s.111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and found that the claim was out of time. Mr Cooper said he had misunderstood the ACAS time limit and thought the reference to three months less one day related to an appeal to his employer, but the tribunal rejected that explanation. It held that it was reasonably practicable for him to have presented the claim in time because he had the relevant facts and had not made the basic enquiries that would have clarified the tribunal time limit. The tribunal referred to Palmer & Saunders v Southend on Sea Borough Council, Biggs v Somerset County Council and London Underground Limited v Noel when setting out the approach to reasonable practicability.

The tribunal therefore concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint and dismissed it. It did not determine the merits of the redundancy dismissal itself, noting only that Mr Cooper remained aggrieved about the redundancy scoring and selection process.

The discrimination complaint was dealt with as an indirect discrimination claim on grounds of marriage. The tribunal noted that the claimant had referred to Saturday working and childcare responsibilities, and that the earlier case management discussion had also touched on possible sex discrimination, but the claim as advanced in the written material was indirect discrimination based on marriage. The tribunal found no basis to extend time as just and equitable under s.123 of the Equality Act 2010 and held that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success. It considered the allegation unclear and unmeritorious on the material before it, and struck the discrimination claim out under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013.