Case 4105484/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Orr v Bibbidi Boddibi Boo Boutique Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 4105484/2020
- Decision date
- 7 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Jones
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Orr
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on whether Mrs S Orr’s unfair dismissal claim was time-barred. The claimant was dismissed on 9 March 2020, contacted ACAS on 22 September 2020, obtained an ACAS certificate that day, and lodged her tribunal claim on 12 October 2020. The tribunal accepted that she had significant personal issues in the intervening period, including a court case concerning her young daughter and responsibilities connected with home schooling children with special needs, but it found that she was not under GP care and was not taking medication for her mental health.
The tribunal applied the statutory time limit in section 101(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the test of reasonable practicability, citing Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-sea Borough Council. It noted that the issue was whether, in the claimant’s circumstances, it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within three months of dismissal, taking into account what steps she took to find the time limit and whether her actions were reasonable.
The tribunal found that the claimant had not taken steps to determine the time limit until she spoke to ACAS, and it rejected her evidence that she had lodged the claim as soon as she spoke to ACAS. There was almost a three-week delay between the ACAS certificate and registration of the claim, and the tribunal also found that she was mistaken in saying that ACAS had told her the time limit was six months.
Although the tribunal accepted that her personal circumstances made it difficult to focus on the claim, it held that it was still reasonably practicable for her to have lodged in time. It found that she could have contacted ACAS sooner, including by email or by researching the position online, and that her preference to speak to an adviser in person was not reasonable in the circumstances. The tribunal recorded that the claim was four months late and concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing on time bar. The tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the unfair dismissal claim within the statutory time limit, so it did not have jurisdiction to consider the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.101(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonable practicability
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-sea Borough Council [1984] IRLR 119
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.