Mr P Allan Twilley v Chassis Cab Ltd — 2022

Mr P Allan Twilley worked for Chassis Cab Ltd as Parts Sales Manager from 1 June 2006 until his dismissal on 4 September 2020, after an earlier disciplinary hearing. His appeal was rejected on 22 September 2020. He presented his claim on 15 April 2021 after Early Conciliation and, at the hearing on 1 September 2022, the tribunal dealt only with the limitation issue for the unfair dismissal claim. No witness statements or oral evidence were taken; the hearing proceeded on the parties' submissions. The respondent also sought determination of time issues on the age discrimination claim, but the tribunal refused that application because only the unfair dismissal time issue was listed for decision.

The tribunal applied section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that the effective date of termination was 4 September 2020 and that the primary three-month limitation period expired on 3 December 2020. The claimant accepted that the claim was not presented in time and said he had acted naively. The tribunal accepted that during the lockdown period he was dealing with his son's home schooling, his wife's serious illness with Covid-19, and job searching, and that he only contacted the Citizens Advice Bureau and then ACAS in late March 2021. It also found that he and his family had internet access throughout the period, although not a personal laptop or PC.

The tribunal concluded that those circumstances did not show that it was not reasonably practicable to present the unfair dismissal claim in time. It found no real impediment to the claimant researching his rights or starting proceedings, and noted that he obtained ACAS advice and then presented the claim the following month without apparent difficulty. The tribunal referred to Palmer & another v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1984] ICR 372 when explaining the reasonably practicable test. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction. It also observed that, even after the EC certificate was issued, there had been further delay before the claim was presented.