Case 2501043/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Littlemore v Steadfast Security Solutions Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2501043/2019
- Decision date
- 3 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A.M.S.Green Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Littlemore
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr S Littlemore was employed by Steadfast Security Solutions Limited as a security officer at Sunderland Football Club. He said the respondent lost the Stadium of Light security contract when it was retendered and awarded to Alpha, and he sought to bring an unfair dismissal claim and notice pay claim. The hearing before Employment Judge A.M.S. Green was a public preliminary hearing focused on whether the unfair dismissal claim had been presented in time under section 111(2) ERA 1996, with joinder of Alpha to be considered only if jurisdiction was established.
The tribunal found that the ET1 should have been presented by 27 April 2019 after ACAS Early Conciliation. Mr Ferguson, who acted for the claimant, said he had sent the ET1 on 18 April 2019, but he later accepted that he overlooked the matter, that an IT failure at Sunderland City Council affected his diary systems on 23 and 24 April 2019, and that the claim was not posted until 9 May 2019. The tribunal accepted that Mr Ferguson took responsibility for the delay and that the claimant himself was not at fault.
Applying section 111(2) ERA 1996 and the "reasonably practicable" test in Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council, the tribunal held that it would have been reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. It said Mr Ferguson could have kept a paper backup diary, could have filed electronically, or could have followed up with the tribunal after the IT system came back online and before the limitation period expired. Because he failed to do so, the delay was not excused.
The tribunal also applied the principle that an advisor's negligence or delay is attributed to the claimant, referring to Ashcroft v Haberdashers' Aske's Boys School and Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd. On that basis, it concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim. As jurisdiction was not established, the tribunal did not determine the joinder application concerning Alpha.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim because the ET1 was presented out of time and the claimant could not rely on the section 111(2) ERA 1996 escape provisions. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 111(2) ERA 1996
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Ashcroft v Haberdashers' Aske's Boys School
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances 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.