Mr M Hassan Dable v Amazon UK Services Limited Heard: in Leicester — 2023

Mr Dable was dismissed by Amazon UK Services Limited on 23 January 2022. He knew at the time of dismissal that he believed the dismissal was unfair and linked to his diabetes and glaucoma, and he knew about Employment Tribunals and was able to search online for the three-month time limit. He assumed the limit ran from the appeal outcome, did not check that assumption, received the appeal outcome on 9 February 2022, and did not contact ACAS until 5 May 2022, when the claim was also presented.

For unfair dismissal, the tribunal applied section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the authorities it cited on reasonable practicability, including the principles in Rodgers, Porter, Palmer, ASDA v Kauser, Trevelyans, Sodexo Health Care v Harmer and Cygnet Behavioural Health. It found that the claimant was aware of his rights and of the existence of tribunal time limits, that he could have checked the position by a quick Google search or by taking advice, and that his ignorance of the correct start date for the limitation period was not reasonable.

The tribunal accepted that the period after dismissal was difficult for the claimant, including financial pressure and marital disharmony, but held that this did not make it not reasonably practicable to bring the claim in time. It also noted that there was no persuasive medical evidence beyond a brief hospital attendance relating to glaucoma, and that he was able to obtain new employment from 18 March 2022 and work 20 hours a week. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore out of time and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it.

For disability discrimination, the tribunal applied section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and the just and equitable time-limit discretion, referring to Robertson v Bexley Community Centre and the relevant factors for extension of time. It found the delay was 13 days, but concluded that the claimant had not shown strong reasons for extending time, had known of the facts since 23 January 2022, and had not taken advice or acted promptly enough. The disability discrimination claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and no remedy was awarded.