Case 3321180/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S El-Shoubashi v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3321180/2021
- Decision date
- 3 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S El-Shoubashi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was converted, with the parties' consent, into an open preliminary hearing to decide whether the tribunal had jurisdiction, because the claim appeared to have been submitted out of time. The claimant accepted she did not have two years' service for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, and the annual leave claim was dismissed on withdrawal.
The effective date of termination was 28 May 2021. After ACAS early conciliation, the last day for presenting the claim in time was 26 September 2021. The claimant emailed her ET1 to the Watford Employment Tribunal on that date, but was later told that new claims could not be submitted by email. She then submitted the claim online on 8 October 2021.
The tribunal found that the claim was presented out of time when lodged in accordance with the Rules on 8 October 2021. It held that it had been reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, and that the reason the claimant used an unacceptable method was advice from counsel. Applying the authorities on adviser fault, the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction and dismissed the remaining claims.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The claim of failure to pay holiday pay was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The claimant pursued automatically unfair constructive dismissal contrary to sections 100 and 103A ERA, alleging health and safety issues and protected disclosures. The tribunal held the claim was presented out of time, that it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time, and that it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The protected disclosure detriment claim was dismissed because it was received out of time and the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The health and safety detriment claim under section 44 ERA was dismissed because it was received out of time and the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for one day's unpaid wages was dismissed because it was received out of time and the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- reasonably practicable test
- sections 23, 48 and 111 ERA
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd [1973] IRLR 379
- Dedman principle
- Marks and Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan [2005] ICR 1293
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.