Mr S. Sammon v Valuation Office Agency People Group — 2020

This was a preliminary hearing on the respondent’s application to strike out the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim for lateness. The claimant did not attend and was not represented. The tribunal was satisfied that he had been notified of the hearing, had a reasonable opportunity to participate, and that it was just to proceed in his absence under rule 47, with reference to Roberts v Skelmersdale College.

The parties agreed that the effective date of termination was 2 July 2019. The tribunal accepted the respondent’s calculation of the limitation period: the claimant contacted ACAS on 30 August 2019, the ACAS certificate was issued on 2 September 2019, three days were discounted under s.207B ERA 1996, and the extended limitation date was 4 October 2019. The claim was presented on 10 October 2019, which the tribunal found to be six days out of time.

Applying s.111 ERA 1996 and the authorities on the meaning of “reasonably practicable”, including Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council and Marks & Spencer Ltd v Williams-Ryan, the tribunal held that the claimant had not discharged the burden of showing that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. The tribunal noted that the claimant had had ample opportunity to explain the delay but had provided no explanation to the tribunal.

The tribunal therefore concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint and struck it out. The written reasons also record that the respondent indicated it would seek costs, and separate case management orders were made in relation to that application.