Employment Tribunal Claims – Outside the Time Limits [1]

Employment Tribunal Claimans - UDO presents this case summary as part of our extended guide for claimants who, after carefully calculating their Effective Date of Termination (EDT) and applying the ACAS “stop the clock” rules, still find themselves lodging an unfair dismissal claim outside the statutory time limit. This case highlights the strict approach tribunals take under section 111 ERA 1996, showing that even where a claimant promptly instructs solicitors and is repeatedly reassured that all is in hand, adviser negligence will not usually excuse lateness. Full guidance and analysis can be found here: https://www.unfairdismissal.org/post/extending-time-when-you-re-still-late-unfair-dismissal

Summary of Employment Tribunal Claims - outside the time limit -BAILII case number: [2019] UKEAT 0253_18_1902

The Facts - Central Points

• The claimant went promptly after dismissal to Merseyside Employment Law (MEL), authorised them to act, and was repeatedly assured “everything is in hand.”

• He believed they were pursuing his case, but they failed to submit the ET1 in time.

• When he eventually discovered the truth, the 3-month limit had long expired.

Tribunal & Appeal Decision

• The Employment Judge (EJ) held it was reasonably practicable for him to present the claim in time, because:

  • He knew he had a claim

  • He had access to expert legal advisers (MEL).

  • He entrusted them with the case within time.

  • The failure was due to the advisers’ negligence, not any circumstance that made it impracticable for him to act.

• On appeal, Mrs Justice Slade agreed:

  • The classic Court of Appeal line of cases (Dedman; Marks & Spencer v Williams-Ryan) says that where a claimant instructs a solicitor and the claim is late because of solicitor negligence, it was still “reasonably practicable” to lodge the claim.

  • Adviser error does not make it “not reasonably practicable.”

  • The “escape clause” is only available where the claimant was prevented by something outside their control (e.g. illness, not knowing of dismissal, or misinformation about the law itself).

  • The judge’s stray remark (“he could have gone elsewhere”) wasn’t the basis of the decision; the decision rested on the principle that adviser negligence doesn’t save the claim.

Key Reason Appeal Failed

• The claimant’s misfortune was caused by MEL’s negligence, not by impossibility or lack of practicability on his part.

• Because he knew of his dismissal and of his right to claim, and had competent advisers available, the statutory test under s.111 ERA was not met.

• Therefore, no jurisdiction existed to extend time for the unfair dismissal claim.

✅ Bottom line: The appeal was not allowed because, under binding authority, solicitor/adviser negligence does not make it “not reasonably practicable” to present an unfair dismissal claim in time. The law deliberately draws a hard line: for unfair dismissal, lateness is only excused if truly impossible, not just because an adviser let you down.