Case 2603063/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C MacKenzie (deceased) v Pointon and Sempringham Parish Council — 2022
- Case reference
- 2603063/2021
- Decision date
- 20 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation Claimant
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C MacKenzie (deceased)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on limitation in an unfair dismissal claim brought by Mrs C MacKenzie against Pointon and Sempringham Parish Council. The tribunal recorded that she was dismissed on 7 March 2021, so the ordinary limitation date for presenting an unfair dismissal claim was 6 June 2021. The claim form was not received until 6 December 2021, around six months late. The claimant died on 7 April 2022, and the tribunal appointed Mrs Pamela Jayne Keeley to continue the proceedings on her behalf.
The claimant relied on three reasons for the delay: a wish to appeal her dismissal, a wish to avoid putting the respondent to the cost of a tribunal hearing, and difficulties arising from remote working and the COVID-19 pandemic. The tribunal accepted that the claimant knew she had a potential unfair dismissal claim within days of dismissal, had contacted her local District Council shortly after dismissal, was computer literate, could use email and the tribunal claim form, and had also made contact with ACAS at the end of 2020. It held that the existence of an internal appeal was not enough to make it not reasonably practicable to present the claim, and that the pandemic did not prevent tribunal presentation.
Applying the section 111 ERA 1996 time limit and the "reasonably practicable" test, the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time. As the claim was not brought within the statutory period and the escape clause did not apply, the tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim in its entirety. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal decided the claim was presented outside the three-month time limit and that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.111 ERA 1996
- s.207B Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- s.108 ERA 1996
- reasonably practicable test
- Palmer and anor v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Bodha v Hampshire Area Health Authority
- Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- 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.