Mrs G Forrester v The Crystal Bar — 2022

Mrs G Forrester brought a single claim of unfair dismissal arising from her dismissal by The Crystal Bar on 13 November 2020 by reason of redundancy. The case was heard as a preliminary issue under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, because the tribunal had to decide whether the claim had been presented in time or, if not, whether it was not reasonably practicable to present it within the primary limitation period.

The tribunal accepted that the claim was not lodged within the three months less one day time limit. It found that the claimant knew about tribunal time limits around the time of dismissal, but had concerns only that the respondent was trying to push her out and initially accepted the explanation that redundancy was being carried out on a last in first out basis. Because the respondent's premises were closed until around 17 May 2021, the claimant did not discover until reopening that former colleagues were still working there, which the tribunal accepted was the point at which she first had grounds to question the fairness of the redundancy selection. Relying on Machine Tool Industry Research Association v Simpson, the tribunal held that it was not reasonably practicable for her to bring the claim within the primary time limit.

The claim still failed because the tribunal found she did not present it within such further period as was reasonable after the relevant information became available. She sought legal advice around 20 May 2021, contacted Acas and started Early Conciliation on 27 May 2021, but did not lodge the ET1 until 11 June 2021. Applying the approach discussed in Mr H Nolan v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services, the tribunal held that a delay of almost three and a half weeks after 17 May 2021 was not reasonable, particularly because she already knew the time limits. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.