Mr M Moloney v Cantifix Ltd — 2025

This was a three-hour preliminary hearing before Employment Judge McCooey at Watford (by CVP) on 29 July 2025 to determine whether the unfair dismissal (redundancy) and breach of contract (unpaid expenses of £3,087.39) claims were time-barred under Rule 28 of the Employment Tribunal Procedural Rules 2024. The claimant, a Project Manager employed by the respondent glazing company for sixteen years, had an effective date of termination of 6 February 2024 and filed his ET1 on 31 July 2024 following Acas conciliation between 20 May and 1 July 2024. A related claim for statutory redundancy pay was withdrawn after the respondent paid £10,288 on 20 December 2024.

The tribunal found that the claimant genuinely and reasonably believed, by 1 March 2024, that the respondent was unlawfully withholding his statutory redundancy payment and expenses by conditioning payment on the signing of an exit agreement. Applying the "not reasonably practicable" test under s.111(2)(b) ERA 1996, and considering authorities including Porter v Bandridge, Dedman, London International College v Sen, Palmer v Southend, and Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan, the judge accepted the claimant operated under a mistaken belief that time ran from 1 March 2024 rather than the EDT, which amounted to ignorance of a crucial fact. The judge noted the additional complexity for a litigant in person navigating different time limits and ongoing negotiations, and found the failure to take legal advice was not fatal in the circumstances.

The judge also found the claim was presented within a reasonable further period, treating the intervening weeks as a continuation of the mistaken belief rather than further unexplained delay. The claimant's gastrointestinal symptoms in April and May 2024 were found not to have impeded his ability to file. The respondent's application to dismiss the claims as time-barred was therefore refused, and the substantive claims proceed to a final hearing listed for 2-5 December 2025.