Ms P Burge v British Airways plc — 2026

The tribunal found that the claim form emailed to London South Employment Tribunal on 23 September 2024 was not validly presented because email to the addresses used was not one of the prescribed presentation methods. It was also not satisfied that the claim form had been posted to the Employment Tribunals Central Office on that date or at any time before 7 October 2024. The documentary evidence did not establish postage, Mr Lindsay was not called to give evidence, and his witness statement did not identify who had posted the documents or describe the postal arrangements.

The tribunal found that the claim pursued under this case number was the claim received and date-stamped on 11 November 2024, following posting with a covering letter dated 6 November 2024. As 7 October 2024 was the latest accepted date for the claims to be in time, the claim was presented 35 days late.

Applying the reasonably practicable test and the Dedman principle, the tribunal found that the failure to present the claim in time resulted from an unreasonable error by the claimant's skilled legal advisers. Email presentation did not comply with the Presidential Practice Direction, and the advisers could have continued attempting to use the online portal during the 14 days remaining after 23 September 2024. The tribunal found that timely presentation had been reasonably practicable and declined to extend time. The unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages and whistleblowing claims were therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The tribunal separately considered the just and equitable test for the discrimination and victimisation claims. It noted the seriousness of the alleged January 2023 incidents, while making no finding that they occurred, and identified uncertainty about the alleged continuing course of conduct, the relationship between dismissal and any protected act, and the absence of an agreed list of issues. It concluded that it could not fairly determine at this preliminary hearing whether those claims were otherwise in time.

Time was extended for the discrimination and victimisation claims only insofar as lateness resulted from the failure to validly present the claim form. The judgment expressly leaves the final tribunal to determine whether those claims are otherwise out of time, including whether they formed part of a continuing act. No monetary remedy was awarded or determined.