Mr G Mitchell v The Fountain Bar Limited — 2025

This was a preliminary hearing in an unfair dismissal claim brought by Mr G Mitchell against The Fountain Bar Limited. The tribunal first decided the limitation issue. It found that the claim had initially been sent on 12 May 2025, but was rejected at vetting because Mr Mitchell had named “Gavin Price” rather than the respondent company on the ET1, so the valid re-presentation on 19 May 2025 was three days late under the ACAS early conciliation timetable.

The tribunal accepted that the error in naming the respondent was a common mistake for an unrepresented party and that Mr Mitchell had diarised 16 May 2025 as the deadline after receiving his early conciliation certificate on 16 April 2025. It accepted his evidence that he had a number of stressful matters at the same time, including separation from his wife, difficulties moving out of accommodation provided by the respondent, a second house move on 17 May 2025, and efforts to save his marriage. The tribunal found that, because of those circumstances, it was reasonable that he did not open the tribunal email rejecting the claim until 18 May 2025.

Applying section 111 ERA 1996 and section 207B ERA 1996, and considering Luton Borough Council v Haque 2018 ICR 1388, the tribunal concluded that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to be presented in time. It also found that once Mr Mitchell realised the error could be corrected, he re-presented the claim promptly on 19 May 2025. The tribunal therefore held that the claim should be accepted under section 111(2)(b) ERA 1996 and that it had jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint at a final hearing.

No liability findings or remedy were determined at this hearing.