Mr B Bhogadi v Premier Exports London Ltd — 2022

The tribunal heard a dispute about whether Mr B Bhogadi resigned from Premier Exports London Ltd on 5 July 2018 or was dismissed on 22 August 2018. It found that he did not utter an express resignation between the two meetings on 5 July, and that the emails and surrounding circumstances did not amount to an unequivocal unilateral resignation by him. The tribunal accepted that the parties were negotiating wider arrangements about his role as director, shareholder and employee, and found that references to resignation in the materials were to resignation as director rather than a clear resignation from employment.

The tribunal found, however, that the respondent unambiguously treated the employment as at an end by 9 July 2018. It held that the effective date of termination was 9 July 2018, relying in particular on the respondent’s email that said the claimant had left the business and demanding the return of company property. The tribunal rejected the claimant’s contention that his employment continued until 22 August 2018, and also rejected his case that he had been on pre-planned annual leave or working remotely from 6 July onwards. It found that after 5 July he was absent without valid contractual excuse, but that did not make his own conduct a resignation.

Applying section 111 ERA 1996 and the time limit rules for the breach of contract and wages claims, the tribunal held that all three complaints were out of time. For the unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims, the limitation period expired on 8 October 2018 on the tribunal’s EDT finding. For the wages claim, the alleged deduction in July 2018 was also outside time. The tribunal considered reasonable practicability and held that it was reasonably practicable for Mr Bhogadi to have started early conciliation and presented his claims in time, noting that he had legal advice, knew the respondent’s position, and was actively considering litigation.

The result was that all complaints were dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The tribunal made no monetary award because it did not reach any substantive remedy stage.