Case 6015206/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Rebecca Rayner v St Vincent de Paul Society (England and Wales) Heard: in public by Cloud Video Platform — 2026
- Case reference
- 6015206/2025
- Decision date
- 17 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Rebecca Rayner
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningRebecca Rayner brought a complaint of automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Her employment ended on 12 November 2024. She contacted ACAS on 29 January 2025, received the Early Conciliation Certificate on 12 March 2025, and presented her claim on 28 April 2025.
Applying the early conciliation extension in section 207B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Tribunal found that the deadline for presenting the claim was 12 April 2025. The claim was therefore presented 16 days late. The Tribunal found on balance that ACAS had not told the claimant that the deadline was 22 April 2025 and that she had instead taken that date from the record of the earlier preliminary hearing.
The Tribunal accepted that the claimant had experienced a difficult and stressful period while caring for her mother, who had advanced dementia. It nevertheless found that presenting the claim by 12 April 2025 had been reasonably practicable. In reaching that conclusion, the Tribunal considered that the claimant knew of the time limit, had commenced early conciliation in time, had previous experience of Employment Tribunal proceedings, and had been able during the relevant period to arrange residential care for her mother, obtain new employment, attend meetings, clear her mother's house, and prepare for her new role.
The claimant had not proved that presenting the claim in time was not reasonably practicable. The Tribunal also found that the claim had not been presented within a reasonable further period because, after realising on 25 April 2025 that she was late, the claimant waited three more days without providing a valid reason for that delay. The claim was dismissed as out of time for lack of jurisdiction; its merits and prospects of success were not considered, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The complaint was automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It was dismissed as out of time because the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction; the merits and prospects of success were not determined. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- reasonable practicability under section 111(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- early conciliation time-limit extension under section 207B of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- “reasonably feasible” test in Palmer and another v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1984] ICR 372
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.