The claimant had issued a claim for disability discrimination from 13th February 2019. There were a series of Case Management Discussions (as they were termed at the time) between June 2019 and January 2020.   The claimant failed to attend but submitted medical evidence as to why he was unable to attend. This medical evidence was accepted by the Tribunal. When he did attend a Case Management Discussion, he was informed that there was no claim for unfair dismissal and was given two options by the Tribunal: 

1. Lodge a new Tribunal claim and seek an extension of the statutory time limit; or 
2. Apply to amend to original claim and apply for the necessary extension. 

The claimant chose the former with the ET1 being lodged on 2nd December 2020. The agreed date of dismissal for the claimant was 12th September 2019 and as a result his claim was 12 months outside of the 3-month statutory time limit. The respondent, in their ET3, outlined that they contested the claim as it was outside the statutory time limit.  

The claimant gave a series of reasons for the claim being lodged out of time. The first was that he was significantly mentally unwell in 2019, and this was confirmed in a report from a consultant psychiatrist stating that he required admission to the Home Treatment Team, and it would have had an impact on being able to organise a dismissal claim.  Additionally, he believed that his disability discrimination claim would have covered his dismissal claim. He was unaware of this until he was informed on 3rd November 2020 that unfair dismissal was not included.  Lastly, he said he had no legal background and the Covid-19 pandemic meant that he was not able to speak to anyone to get advice about his claim.    

The respondent argued that the treatment with the Home Treatment Team was in June/July of 2019 and the claimant should have been able to submit the claim within the requisite period. They also outlined that ignorance of legal rights was insufficient to circumvent the statutory time limit.   

The Tribunal weighed up these respective arguments and held that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to lodge his claim within the statutory time limit.   The fact the report stated that the claimant’s diagnosis was ‘manic psychosis’ would have had a real impact on his ability to organise the dismissal claim.  Accordingly, it was held that the claimant was not functioning mentally and that he would not have been in a mentally fit state to realise that he had to present a new claim for unfair dismissal.   In terms of whether it was then submitted within a reasonable time when it became reasonably practicable; it was held that it was. The basis for this was the fact the claimant was informed of the need for a new dismissal claim on 12th November 2020 and it was duly submitted on 2nd December.  Accordingly, the claim was allowed to proceed. 

Practical Lessons

This case again demonstrates the legal hurdles that must be overcome where a claim has been submitted outside the statutory time limit. When this issue does arise, it is important for the claimant to demonstrate any medical reasons that may have arisen which meant they were unable to present their claim.  This was the overarching reason for the Tribunal allowing the claim to proceed. This must be borne in mind by those representing both claimants and respondents when a time-limit issue arises. 

NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website:
http://www.employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/