Mr. V. Perry v Mrs. L. Howlett — 2022

The claimant worked as a hairstylist for the respondent from around 22 September 2001. The effective date of termination was 11 November 2020, so the primary limitation deadline for an unfair dismissal claim was 10 February 2021. The claimant lodged a first ET1 on 18 November 2020 without an Early Conciliation certificate number and indicated that he did not have one because his claim consisted only of unfair dismissal with interim relief. The Tribunal initially accepted part of that claim, but the interim relief application was later withdrawn and, following later proceedings before Judge Moore, the first claim was struck out for want of jurisdiction.

Employment Judge Boyes found that by early December 2020 the claimant knew the first claim was defective. The claimant and Mr Julian discussed the missing Early Conciliation reference number and the risk that the claim could be rejected. The judge did not accept, on the evidence, that the claimant had proved he had contacted ACAS in the way he alleged, and held that even if there had been confusion about the claim form, he was aware of the defect well before the limitation period expired. The judge considered that he could have sought specialist employment advice, asked the Tribunal to clarify the position, obtained an Early Conciliation certificate, withdrawn the first claim, and filed a fresh claim before 10 February 2021.

The tribunal further held that, even if it had not been reasonably practicable to present a valid claim within the primary period, the second claim filed on 7 September 2021 was not presented within a further reasonable period. The respondent raised the defect on 7 July 2021, and Judge Moore’s decision at the August 2021 hearing confirmed that the first claim could not proceed. The claimant nevertheless waited until after obtaining an Early Conciliation certificate on 19 August 2021 and after the 20 August 2021 hearing before lodging the second claim. The judge also rejected the suggestion that the claimant’s health issues prevented an earlier filing, noting there was no medical evidence that they stopped him from making the necessary telephone call to ACAS and submitting the online form. On that basis, the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.