Mr J Watt v Savills Management Resources Limited — 2025

Mr Watt was employed as Technical Services Director from 4 September 2023 on a salary of £80,000. At a meeting on 6 February 2024, his manager, Anne Ledgerwood, said it was best to bring his probation to an end and Louise Mair then discussed his contractual four-week notice entitlement. A letter dated 12 February 2024 later stated that his employment had terminated on 6 February 2024 and that he would be paid in lieu of notice. The hearing was concerned with time limits, jurisdiction and an application to amend, not the merits of the substantive claims.

For the automatically unfair dismissal complaint under s100(1)(a) and/or s103A ERA, the tribunal held that the effective date of termination was 12 February 2024. It found that the 6 February discussion did not plainly and unambiguously communicate summary termination, because the claimant was told he was entitled to four weeks' notice and remained unclear at the end of the meeting. The first clear communication of immediate termination and payment in lieu of notice was the letter of 12 February 2024. On that basis, the unfair dismissal complaint was presented in time after early conciliation and the tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to consider it.

The detriment complaints under s47B ERA were dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The tribunal identified detriments said to have occurred in December 2023 and on 19 January 2024, held that the primary three-month time limit expired on 18 April 2024, and found that early conciliation started after that date so did not extend the time limit for those complaints. It concluded that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaints to be presented in time, and in any event they were not brought within a further reasonable period because the claimant was well enough by early May 2024 to start alternative work and participate in early conciliation but did not present the claim until 30 June 2024.

The tribunal also refused the claimant's application to amend the claim to add a failure to make reasonable adjustments complaint. It treated the proposed amendment as a new cause of action with different factual and legal issues, noted that the application was made on 16 October 2024 after the relevant limitation period had passed, and observed that the claimant had not explained why he did not seek amendment earlier after his ADHD diagnosis on 31 July 2024. Applying the Selkent balancing exercise, it held that the balance of hardship and injustice favoured the respondent.