Una Sault v Empire Amusements & Cheeky Monkey's Soft Play Centre — 2020

This was a preliminary hearing on limitation only. The claimant said her employment did not end until 4 July 2020, when Miss Greason allegedly told her in person that she had been replaced. The respondent said employment ended in March 2020, relying on letters dated 6 March and 14 March 2020 which it said were hand delivered to the claimant's home. After hearing oral evidence from the claimant, Mr O'Brien and Mr Norman, the tribunal preferred the claimant's account and found that she did not receive or read the March letters.

The tribunal found several features of the respondent's later conduct inconsistent with a March dismissal. These included the 23 March 2020 letter dealing with statutory sick pay in terms that still referred to the claimant as an employee, the completed SSP form which did not select the option that the contract had ended, the claimant's April text message to Miss Greason, the lack of any response explaining that she had already been dismissed, and the claimant's visit on 4 July 2020 followed by collection of her P45 later in July. On that evidence, the tribunal held that the effective date of termination was 4 July 2020 and that the unfair dismissal claim was presented within the three-month time limit under section 111 ERA 1996.

The tribunal referred to section 111 ERA 1996, section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978, A/S Cathrineholm v Norequipment Trading Ltd, Brown v Southall and Knight, and Gisda Cyf v Barrett. It observed that the deemed service authorities were not the central issue because the respondent's case was that it had hand delivered the letters, so the real question was whether the claimant had in fact received them. The tribunal also noted, without deciding the point, that if the claimant had been too unwell to read or recall the letters, that could have supported an argument that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim earlier. No remedy was awarded because the merits of the unfair dismissal claim were not decided at this hearing.