The claimant brought claims including unfair dismissal and failure to pay holiday pay notice pay.  He had worked for the respondents for 20 years as a farm labourer and claimed that he was told that he was being made redundant. Evidence was heard that the claimant’s wife looked after all business matters for him and that she organised a meeting with an accountant to consider an upcoming tax bill.

Although accepting that he had no legal expertise, the accountant suggested that a claim of unfair dismissal may arise and said someone in his office would look into the matter. This did not materialise but eventually the claimant’s wife was able to have an ET1 form sent from the Office of Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal (OITFET), although the ‘Tribunal Procedures Booklet’ would have to be accessed online and printed. This was not done and it was not disputed that the claimant did not own a home computer.

Further, OITFET advised neither the claimant nor his wife about the relevant time limits. Legal advice was sought shortly after and the claim form was swiftly lodged, albeit outside of the statutory 3 month time limit. The tribunal held that the claims were presented outside the prescribed three month time limit and were not brought by the claimant as soon as was reasonably practicable

Practical Lessons

The tribunal were not sympathetic to the claimant’s arguments regarding his personal circumstances. It held that this was not a case in which there was an impediment preventing the claimant from presenting his claim on time. The claimant’s approach was characterised by passivity and a failure to look after his own interests, notwithstanding his anger at losing his employment.

In this case there were a series of missed opportunities, including the failure of the accountant to refer the claimant to a solicitor and the claimant’s wife inability to conduct legal research. However, the proverbial buck stops with the claimant who here was simply not proactive.

The tribunal considered whether the ‘reasonably practicable test’ should be read as ‘reasonably feasible’ and did not reject this refinement but rather held that it would not assist the claimant. Lastly, it is noteworthy that the argument was raised that OITFET has no obligation to advise claimants on time limits. While not discussed in their reasons, this would be an interesting point for a future tribunal to consider if a case was finely balanced and such failure to advise could tip the case either way.
http://www.employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/