Case 3305312/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person assisted by her friend Mr T Wyatt For the v Mr Hollebon (Solicitor with Harrison Clark) Strike Out Decision – — 2021
- Case reference
- 3305312/2021
- Decision date
- 11 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Neill Appearance
- Venue
- Watford in public
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person assisted by her friend Mr T Wyatt For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with a preliminary hearing and considered whether the claimant's ET1, lodged on 4 April 2021, was in time. The parties agreed that ACAS early conciliation began on 20 January 2021, the certificate was issued on 3 March 2021, and the effective date of termination was 22 October 2020. On that basis, the tribunal held that the extended limitation period had expired on or before 3 April 2021, so the claim was one day late.
Applying section 111(2)(b) ERA 1996, the tribunal considered whether it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented in time and whether it was then presented within a reasonable further period. It accepted that the claimant met the second limb but not the first. The tribunal found she knew of her right to bring a tribunal claim by November 2020, that she and Mr Wyatt knew or should have known about the time limit, and that if they could locate rule 4 of the Employment Tribunal Rules they could have ascertained the claim time limit earlier.
The tribunal did not accept that the claimant's psychological condition prevented the late filing. It relied on the letter from Dona Hartnett dated 24 August 2021, but found that it did not show the claimant was incapacitated in the months before 3 April 2021. The tribunal also noted that she had been capable of making an ACAS application after a long internal procedure and was managing a team of 12 people when the time limit expired. It concluded that the late filing was because the claimant left it too late and, notwithstanding arguments about fairness, the statutory test was not framed in terms of justice and equitability.
The tribunal struck out the claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, holiday pay, and failure to provide a statement under section 1 ERA 1996 as having no reasonable prospect of success because they were out of time. It declined to extend time, so no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under Rule 37 as having no reasonable prospect of success because it was lodged out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim by the deadline and declined to extend time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | One of the monetary claims struck out for being out of time under section 111 ERA 1996; no extension was granted. | Struck out | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Struck out as out of time under section 111 ERA 1996; the tribunal declined to allow an extension. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Claim for failure to provide a statement under section 1 ERA 1996 was struck out with the other time-barred claims. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 37
- section 111 ERA 1996
- section 111(2)(b) ERA 1996
- section 207B ERA 1996
- not reasonably practicable
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.