Mr T Symons v Aviat Networks — 2021

This was a preliminary hearing to determine a time-bar issue, not the merits of the underlying dispute. Mr T Symons said Aviat Networks had agreed in a settlement agreement that his employment would end on 30 April 2020, but that the respondent instead terminated his employment with effect from 3 April 2020. He said this was a breach of contract and caused him to lose contractual benefits for the period between 3 April and 30 April 2020. No productions were lodged. The evidence came from the claimant only, and the tribunal accepted him as an honest witness on the matters he recalled.

The tribunal found that the effective date of termination was 3 April 2020, so the primary three-month time limit for bringing a breach of contract claim in the employment tribunal expired on 2 July 2020. The claim was not submitted until 13 August 2020. The tribunal also held that the ACAS early conciliation period, which began on 10 July 2020, could not extend the primary time limit because it started after that limit had already expired. The tribunal therefore concluded that the claim was submitted outwith the statutory time limit.

The tribunal then considered whether it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time and whether it had been brought within such further period as was reasonable. It rejected the claimant’s explanation that he did not know there was a time limit and thought time was unlimited. The tribunal noted that he had been told in April 2020 by the solicitor who had previously advised him that the respondent’s conduct amounted to a breach of contract, that the solicitor offered to represent him, and that he also corresponded with the respondent about the dispute from 24 April to the end of June 2020. It found that he had opportunities to find out about his rights and time limits, but did not take them up because he hoped to resolve matters amicably.

The tribunal also rejected the suggestion that the respondent had used stalling tactics or misled him about time limits. It found no indication that the respondent suggested he should delay or not submit a tribunal claim, and it said there was no positive duty on the respondent to advise him of the limitation period. As a result, the tribunal held that it was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, and dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction. It added that even if the termination date had been 6 April 2020 rather than 3 April 2020, the claim would still have been out of time.