Gloria Pryce v Airport Executive Limited — 2024

Gloria Pryce had worked for Airport Executive Limited since 31 March 2007 as a telephonist. She was absent from work from around 10 August 2020 until the end of her employment, and the medical evidence before the tribunal included scleritis and osteoarthritis of the wrist. The tribunal found that the respondent decided to terminate her employment on 9 May 2022 and that the dismissal letter sent by email on 10 May 2022 was clear and unambiguous, terminating employment with immediate effect. It also found that she read, or had a reasonable opportunity to read, the dismissal letter on 10 May 2022.

The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal complaint and the breach of contract claim for wrongful dismissal were both presented outside the primary three-month time limits, which expired on 9 August 2022. It rejected the claimant's case that time should run from the conclusion of the appeal in February 2023. The tribunal found that she was legally represented, was able to instruct solicitors throughout the relevant period, and had in fact instructed them in relation to the appeal before the deadline. It accepted that the real reasons for not bringing claims sooner were the financial implications, a belief that the respondent might reinstate her if the appeal was pursued by solicitors, and an intention to try settlement rather than litigation. On that basis, it held that it was reasonably practicable to present both claims in time.

The reasonable adjustments complaint under the Equality Act 2010 was also dismissed as out of time. The tribunal treated 9 May 2022 as the date of the alleged failure to make adjustments, found that the three-month period expired on 8 August 2022, and concluded that it was not just and equitable to extend time. In reaching that decision it took account of the claimant's health issues, but found that she was able to read emails and instruct her representatives during the relevant period, with assistance from her daughter at times. It also found that the respondent would suffer significant prejudice if required to defend a claim brought more than nine months late. The claims for a statutory redundancy payment and constructive dismissal were withdrawn, and no remedy was awarded.