Case 6001341/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Shield v Durham County Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001341/2025
- Decision date
- 29 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robertson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Shield
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Shield was employed by Durham County Council as a Gardener from 3 March 2014 until his summary dismissal on 23 August 2024. He brought an unfair dismissal claim under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Robertson, sitting alone, was to decide whether the claim had been presented out of time.
The tribunal found that the primary three-month time limit expired on 22 November 2024. ACAS early conciliation began on 18 December 2024 and ended on 23 December 2024, so the extension under section 207B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 did not assist because the primary time limit had already expired. The claim was presented on 14 January 2025 and was therefore out of time on its face.
The claimant appealed against his dismissal and expected to get his job back. The tribunal accepted that his mental health was poor after dismissal, that he had no IT skills, and that he did not know how to make a tribunal claim. However, it found that his mental health did not prevent him from investigating how to bring a claim, and that he took no steps during the primary time limit because he expected his appeal to succeed.
Applying the reasonable practicability test and the authorities cited in the reasons, the tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim within the initial time limit. It also found, if necessary, that after being advised by CAB and ACAS about time limits, the further delay until 14 January 2025 meant the claim was not presented within a reasonable time after expiry. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed at a preliminary hearing because the unfair dismissal claim was presented outside the section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996 time limit. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and, alternatively, that it was not presented within a reasonable time after expiry. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonable practicability
- Asda v Kauser [UKEAT/0165/07]
- Dedman v British Building & Engineering [1974] ICR 53
- Cygnet Behavioural Health Limited v Britton [2022] EAT 108
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.