The claimant presented a claim for unpaid holiday pay. The salient issue was whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the claimant’s claim having regard to the provisions of Art.7 of the Industrial Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order (NI) 1994 regarding the time-limit for presenting her claim.

The claimant suffered from auto immune syndrome hepatitis and was unable to return thereafter to her employment. Whilst she received a figure of holiday pay there was a balance owing which was not paid by the respondent at the termination of her employment.

In 2013 the claimant became aware, as a result of an ECJ decision of Stringer v HMRC [2009] IRLR 214, of the ability of an employee to obtain outstanding holiday pay, which had been accrued when that employee was off sick, on the termination of employment. The claimant downloaded the relevant claim form, but delayed sending it for about a month due to concerns about her health and the possible implications a claim may have.

In deciding whether it was ‘reasonably practicable’ to present the complaint in time the tribunal mentioned the seminal authority of Biggs v Somerset County Council [1996] IRLR 203. However, the tribunal decided not to follow the jurisprudence and treated the index claim as ‘an exceptional case’ since the claimant could not have been expected to have been aware of the Stringer decision.

It was then necessary for the tribunal to consider whether the claimant brought the claim within a further reasonable period. The delay of about a month between becoming aware of her possible claim and the sending of the application was initially deemed reasonable due to the serious health conditions of the claimant.

However, citing the ‘strong public interest’ in claims being brought promptly the tribunal held that the claim was not brought within a reasonable period. The tribunal relied on the dicta of Cullinane v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services Ltd [UKEAT/0537/10] and the emphasis on the claimant’s lack of early enquiries about a claim.


Practical lessons from this decision

Whilst expressing sympathy for the claimant the tribunal relied on an ‘objective consideration of the relevant factors’ in rejecting the claim. The over-arching factor considered by the court certainly seemed to be the policy reasons involved in encouraging individuals to bring employment law claims in time. The decision of Biggs was relied upon in finding that claimants who cite the fact that they did not understand the state of the law at the relevant time won’t have a sufficient excuse to allow the tribunal to ‘circumvent’ the statutory time-limits.