Case 3310786/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Saint v Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) — 2024
- Case reference
- 3310786/2023
- Decision date
- 5 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Saint
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant had spinal surgery in about 2021 and could not return to his role as Coxswain at Aldeburgh Lifeboat Station. Following a grievance process, he was told at a meeting on 27 February 2023 that he was being dismissed on grounds of ill-health capability. The respondent’s email of 3 March 2023 said the claimant’s last day of service was that day, while the dismissal letter referred to notice running from 3 March to 2 June; later correspondence and the appeal record also treated 3 March 2023 as the last day of employment. The tribunal found that 3 March 2023 was the effective date of dismissal for limitation purposes.
The unfair dismissal complaint was presented on 2 September 2023 after Acas early conciliation began on 25 June 2023 and ended on 6 August 2023. On the tribunal’s findings, the three-month time limit expired on 2 June 2023, and the claimant had not approached Acas by that date so there was no statutory extension available before expiry. Applying section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal accepted that the claimant genuinely but mistakenly believed that 2 June 2023 was the relevant date, that he had confused himself about timing, and that the mistake meant it was not reasonably practicable for him to present the claim in time. The tribunal was satisfied that he then brought the claim within a further reasonable period.
For the disability discrimination complaint, the tribunal applied section 123 Equality Act 2010 and held that it was just and equitable to extend time. It noted that some delay had occurred and that this could cause prejudice to both sides, but concluded that the practical prejudice would likely have been similar whether the claim had been presented in late May or early September. The tribunal therefore held that it had jurisdiction to consider both the unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims. The case was listed for a final hearing on 22 to 25 July 2024, but those dates were vacated because the parties were not ready, and the case was relisted to be notified later.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary jurisdiction and time-limit decision only. The tribunal found the effective date of dismissal was 3 March 2023, held the unfair dismissal claim was out of time on that basis, but extended time because it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim earlier. Merits were not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary jurisdiction and time-limit decision only. The tribunal held it was just and equitable to extend time for the disability discrimination complaint and therefore had jurisdiction to consider it. Merits were not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- section 18A Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- section 207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 140B Equality Act 2010
- not reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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.