Case 6006215/2024 · Employment Tribunal
in person (supported by her husband) The v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 6006215/2024
- Decision date
- 13 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Goraj Representation
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person (supported by her husband) The
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, who had worked for the respondent from about 18 October 2017 until dismissal on 4 March 2024, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal that was presented on 19 July 2024. This hearing was confined to the preliminary issue of time limits. The tribunal accepted that the effective date of termination was 4 March 2024 and that the primary section 111 time limit therefore expired on 3 June 2024, subject to any extension for early conciliation under section 207B of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's calculation of the deadline from the ACAS email of 11 June 2024. It held that the correct application of section 207B meant that Day A was 24 May 2024, Day B was 11 June 2024, the section 207B(3) period took the deadline to 21 June 2024, and section 207B(4) extended it only to 11 July 2024. The tribunal found there was no legal basis for the ACAS email's suggestion that the claimant could add the remaining time from the original three-month period on top of the one-month post-certificate period.
Although the claim was therefore out of time on the correct calculation, the tribunal found that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present it by 11 July 2024. It accepted that she was a litigant in person with no legal training, that she had relied on the ACAS conciliator's email of 11 June 2024, that she believed the deadline was 22 July 2024, and that she acted accordingly by presenting the claim on 19 July 2024. The tribunal also accepted that she had taken reasonable steps to seek advice, including contacting CAB and a solicitor, but was unable to obtain effective help.
The tribunal further held that the claim was presented within such further period after 11 July 2024 as was reasonable in all the circumstances. It therefore concluded that it had jurisdiction to entertain the unfair dismissal complaint and that the matter should proceed to a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing on time limits only. The tribunal held the complaint was presented outside the extended statutory deadline of 11 July 2024, but it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present it by that date and the claim was presented within a reasonable period thereafter, so the tribunal has jurisdiction and the claim will proceed to a final hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 111(2)(a) ERA 1996
- section 111(2)(b) ERA 1996
- section 207B ERA 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Luton Borough Council v Haque
- DHL Supply Chain Ltd v Fazackerley
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.