Mr G Taggart v Mr D Jaap Represented by Solicitor Bridge of Weir Leather Company Ltd and 1 other — 2021

The claimant, Mr G Taggart, brought a single unfair dismissal complaint arising from his dismissal on 12 October 2020. The tribunal noted that the respondent attributed the dismissal to redundancy. The claim was initially presented against two named respondents, but the parties agreed that Scottish Leather Group Operations Limited had changed its name from Bridge of Weir Leather Company Ltd and that the case should proceed only against the respondent in its current name.

The issue before the tribunal was time bar. The tribunal accepted that the ordinary three-month time limit would have expired on 11 January 2021, but found that an ACAS early conciliation process commenced on 2 December 2020 stopped the clock under s.207B ERA 1996 and extended the deadline to 24 February 2021. A later ACAS process relating to the former company name did not extend time further, because it concerned the same matter.

The tribunal found that the claimant was unaware of the statutory time limit, but that he had engaged his trade union and then Waldrons Solicitors to pursue an unfair dismissal claim on his behalf. It found that neither the union nor Waldrons informed him about the time limit before it expired, and that any failure or unreasonable ignorance on their part was attributable to the claimant under the Dedman principle. The tribunal also found that there was no reasonable mistake taking the case outside that principle, and that the claimant's advisers had been aware of the dismissal date.

Applying the reasonable practicability test in s.111 ERA 1996, and the authorities cited on ignorance of time limits and the effect of skilled advisers, the tribunal concluded that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented his unfair dismissal complaint within the extended time limit. It therefore did not need to consider whether the claim was presented within a reasonable period after expiry. The complaint was dismissed and the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear it.