Case 2500519/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Atkinson Miss K Myers v British Telecommunications plc — 2021
- Case reference
- 2500519/2021
- Decision date
- 14 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moss REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Atkinson Miss K Myers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Atkinson brought claims for unfair dismissal and entitlement to a redundancy payment, either statutory and/or breach of contract. Ms Myers brought a claim for entitlement to a redundancy payment, either statutory and/or breach of contract. After learning of the statutory cap, the claimants did not pursue the statutory redundancy payment claims at the hearing. The remaining preliminary issue was whether the unfair dismissal and breach of contract complaints had been presented in time.
Mr Atkinson's employment ended by reason of redundancy on 8 November 2020, so his claims had to be presented by 7 February 2021. He contacted ACAS on 27 March 2021 and presented his claim on 27 April 2021. Ms Myers' employment ended by reason of redundancy on 15 November 2020, so her claim had to be presented by 14 February 2021. She contacted ACAS on 29 March 2021 and presented her claim on 6 May 2021. Because the normal time limits had expired before ACAS was contacted, the tribunal found that the early conciliation extension did not assist either claimant.
The tribunal accepted both claimants' explanations as honest accounts but found that neither had proved it was not reasonably practicable to present the complaints in time. It found that ignorance of rights was not enough without reasonable steps to acquire the necessary knowledge, that there was no evidence the union had misled either claimant, and that the evidence did not show illness or incapacity preventing enquiries, contacting ACAS, or presenting a claim within time. The tribunal therefore found the complaints out of time and did not proceed to determine the redundancy payment calculation issue or Mr Atkinson's unfair dismissal claim on the merits.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Mr Atkinson's unfair dismissal complaint was presented out of time. The tribunal was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for him to present it within the three-month period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The claimants decided not to pursue the statutory redundancy payment claims at the hearing after learning of the cap applying to statutory redundancy payments. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claims concerning the sums payable on redundancy, including whether shift allowance payments should be included in a week's pay, were presented out of time. The tribunal found it had been reasonably practicable to present the complaints within the relevant three-month period. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- Section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- article 7 Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- Section 207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea BC
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Wall's Meat Co v Khan
- London Underground Ltd v Noel
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances
- Asda Stores v Kauser
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum Ltd
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.