EAT Maintains Restrictive Approach to Unfair Dismissal Time Limits
In the case of Community Integrated Care v Peacock [2010] UKEATS 0015 10 BI the EAT upheld the principle that not receiving legal advice on the basic 3 month time limit will generally not result in it having been reasonably impracticable to have brought a claim in time
Facts of the Case
The Claimant was dismissed on 15th June 2009. The Claimant suffered from depression and instructed a solicitor the following day to deal with the internal appeal and some mention was made at her conference with him of a 3 month time limit. There was evidence that a time limit had been discussed at an initial conference, but not at a further meeting. The Claim was presented out of time on 7th October.
At an initial hearing the tribunal decided it was not reasonably practicable for the Claimant to have presented the ET1 in time due to her depressive illness and that the ET1 had been presented within a reasonable time having regard to P’s illness, also concluding in relation to the solicitors: “There is no suggestion of any wrong advice”.
Judgment
The EAT reversed the tribunal’s decision. Holding that there are 2 questions to be answered:
- was it reasonably practicable to present the claim within the 3 month time limit?
- If not, was it presented within a reasonable time thereafter?
The EAT concluded that the decision regarding P’s health was surprising one given that no medical evidence was presented. The EAT further held that the evidence presented to the trhe tribunal did not that the illness or medication was such for it producing such a debillitating effect as to prevent the Claimant from taking steps to instruct her solicitor to present a claim within the 3 month period had she been made aware of that. The Claimant had given instructions in relation to her appeal, and attended meetings with her solicitor, attended the appeal, and dealt with correspondence from her solicitor, which were all indicative of being able to deal with the protection of her employment rights.
This case follows a long line of authorities where the EAT have take a restrictive approach to determining what is and isn’t reasonably practicable. In particular, in Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd [1974] 1 WLR 171; Marks & Spencers Plc v Williams-Ryan [2005] ICR 1293. In Dedman the EAT held that an employee who takes advice and is given incorrect or inadequate advice cannot rely on that fact to excuse a failure to bring a claim in time. The fault on the advisor’s part is attributed to the employee
1 Comment
Other Links to this Post
-
Tweets that mention Tribunal Chat » EAT Maintains Restrictive Approach to Unfair Dismissal Time Limits -- Topsy.com — November 4, 2010 @ 12:51 pm
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
