Mr G Mullaney v Represented by: In Person St Andrews Hospice — 2018

Mr G Mullaney brought a claim of unfair dismissal after his employment with St Andrews Hospice ended on 30 September 2017. The claim was presented to the tribunal on 31 January 2018, following ACAS early conciliation on 8 January 2018 and the issue of the ACAS certificate on 11 January 2018. The only issue before Employment Judge Laura Doherty at the hearing in Glasgow on 8 May 2018 was whether time should be extended under section 111(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The tribunal found that the claimant knew of the existence of Employment Tribunals and knew he had a right to bring a claim, although he did not know the time limit. It accepted that he had started new employment, that his mother became seriously ill around the same time, and that he had been trying to raise his concerns with the respondent through Sister Rita and then Mr Bruce High. The claimant had told Sister Rita in October 2017 that he did not intend to pursue a tribunal claim and did not want financial gain, but by his email of 24 November 2017 he had said that "Constructive Dismissal is the legal term I would use".

Applying section 111 of the ERA 1996, the tribunal stated that the test was whether it was not reasonably practicable to present the complaint within three months, and if so whether it was then lodged within a reasonable further period. It held that ignorance of the time limit was not enough where a claimant knew of the right to claim, and that there was no evidence that the claimant was prevented from obtaining advice. It also found that the claimant's wish to have the respondents resolve matters internally did not make presentation to the tribunal not reasonably practicable.

The tribunal concluded that the claimant's new job and his mother's illness were significant matters, but they did not render it not reasonably practicable for him to engage with the tribunal process. Because the claimant had not shown that presentation within the three-month time limit was not reasonably practicable, the tribunal did not go on to the second stage of the test. It therefore held that there was no basis to extend time and that it had no jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal claim.