Miss A C Bell v Courtesy Trading Ltd T/a Good Boy Dog Walker: 1802035/2025
JUDGMENT
Unfair dismissal and unauthorised deductions form wages[1]The complaints of unfair dismissal and unauthorised deductions from wages were not presented within the applicable time limit. It was reasonably practicable to do so. The complaints of unfair dismissal and unauthorised deductions from wages are therefore dismissed. Failure to make reasonable adjustments[2]The complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments was not presented within the applicable time limit. It is not just and equitable to extend the time limit. The claim is therefore dismissed. Holiday pay[3]The complaint of failure to pay holiday pay on termination of employment is dismissed on withdrawal.REASONS
[1]This case concerned the claimant who, it is agreed, was at the relevant time disabled by reason of ADHD, dyslexia and dyspraxia. She was employed by the respondent as a dog walker. She worked for them from 12 July 2022 until her resignation on 19 September 2024.[2]The claimant undertook early conciliation with ACAS from 12 November 2024 to 20 December 2024. The claimant’s claim form was received by the Employment Tribunal on 18 March 2025. There is further discussion about this below.[3]There was a case management hearing before Employment Judge Morgan KC on 26 September 2025 at which the claims were partially clarified. The Employment Judge made orders for the provision of further information by the claimant.The Issues
[4]The issues were clarified at the start of the hearing, but at the beginning of the second day it became apparent to the Judge that the issues in relation to the constructive unfair dismissal case were not settled. This is because the claimant had been directed to provide further and better particulars of her claim of constructive unfair dismissal by Employment Judge Morgan KC on 26 September 2025, and she appears to have provided some further information in accordance with those Orders on 14 November 2025 to which the respondent had responded. However, those further and better particulars set out very many additional allegations, and it was not clear which of those allegations now formed part of the claimant’s claim of constructive unfair dismissal which required amendment and in any event there had been no amendment application or decision.[5]The judge discussed this with the parties, and it was agreed that all of the parties understood the basis of the claimant’s claim to be those matters set out in her resignation letter of 19 September 2024 which is at page 98 of the bundle. That includes the following broad headings, 5.1. the respondent’s alleged conduct on 19 July 2024 when the claimant was delayed in picking up her son allegedly because she had too many dogs to walk and possibly because her start was delayed. On 19 July Ms Holdsworth was on holiday. 5.2. Then on 16 September that the claimant’s start was delayed that day not 19 July. The claimant had too many dogs to walk on that day meaning that she was delayed in picking up her son from school and the respondent Ms Holdsworth was not available to assist the claimant because she was at the Thirsk races. 5.3. The other matters raised on the constructive unfair dismissal claim were an alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments, 5.4. not being paid for a 15-minute paid meal break throughout her employment or from 20 April 2023 on Thursdays anyway, 5.5. and the failure of the respondent to provide water or toilet facilities.[6]The list of issues including these additional matters is set out in the appendix to the claim.[7]It was clear that the reference in paragraph 1.1 to any act before 13 August 2024 being potentially out of time is incorrect. The claim form was received by the Employment Tribunal on 18 March 2025. There is an application in the final hearing bundle at page 17 making it clear that the claimant originally sent her claim to the Northern Ireland Employment Tribunal. On review of the Employment Tribunal file, it was apparent that that claim had been received by the Northern Ireland Employment Tribunal on 19 January 2025.[8]Consequently, it is apparent that any act before 17 December 2024 was potentially out of time. The final hearing[9]The claimant produced a witness statement and attended and gave evidence. She represented herself and was accompanied by her McKenzie Friend, Mr Cornell.[10]Sophie Holdsworth, Joseph Holdsworth and Alan O’Keefe had each written a witness statement on behalf of the respondent and all attended and gave oral evidence.[11]The claimant had not provided any evidence in her witness statement about the time point, so the judge asked her questions about that which the claimant was giving oral evidence.[12]We were also provided with an agreed file of documents of 208 pages.[13]At the start of the final hearing, the claimant withdrew her claim for holiday pay and that claim is dismissed on withdrawal. The claimant also raised the issue of a claim for harassment. However, after discussing that issue the claimant decided that the matters she potently wanted to raise as a new claim of harassment were relevant to her claim for unfair dismissal. The claimant did not make an application to amend her claim to include a claim of harassment.[14]There was, in the event, insufficient time for the tribunal to deliberate and reach a conclusion on the matters in dispute, we therefore reserved the decision.[15]We apologise that it has taken almost two months to produce a decision. This is because this was the earliest opportunity for the full tribunal to meet and discuss the case.Findings of fact
[16]Our decision is that the claims are all out of time and that time should not be extended under the relevant tests. Consequently, we do not set out in this reserved judgment any findings of fact about the substantive matters in dispute as it is not proportionate to do so.[17]Our findings are limited to the findings of fact we need to make to decide whether the claimant’s claims were brought in time and, if not, whether time should be extended for the presentation of the claims.[18]The claimant resigned with immediate effect on 19 September 2024. The claimant contacted ACAS to start early conciliation on 12 November 2024 and that finished on 20 December 2024. The claimant said, and we accept, that she did not seek advice from anyone but undertook her own research into making a claim to the Employment Tribunal.[19]On or around 19 January 2025, the claimant did a google search about submitting a claim. She says that this search returned an email address which she then used to submit her claim. This was an email address to send a claim to the Northern Ireland Industrial Tribunal.[20]When the Employment judge asked the claimant if it crossed her mind to wonder why the claimant was to be sent to Northern Ireland the claimant said “I didn’t look – I just assumed it was all the same”.[21]We accept the claimant’s evidence of this.[22]On 14 March 2025, the claimant received a notice from the Northern Ireland Industrial Tribunal which rejected her claim. It said “The claim cannot be registered as you live and work outside Northern Ireland. The Tribunal therefore does not have jurisdiction to consider the claim in accordance with Rule 11(1)(c)(i) of Schedule 1 of the Industrial Tribunals and Fair Employment Tribunal Rule of Procedure 2020”.[23]The claimant then sent her ET1 by post together with a letter dated 14 March 2025 to the Employment Tribunal in Loughborough (in accordance with the relevant practice direction) and that was received on 18 March 2025.[24]The accompanying letter requested an extension of time. It said “I am writing to formally request that my tribunal application be considered despite being submitted late due to an honest mistake. Unfortunately, I mistakenly sent my completed tribunal form to the Northern Ireland tribunal email rather than the correct UK tribunal service. As soon as I received an email from the Northem Ireland service informing me of this error, I immediately contacted the appropriate UK tribunal office and have taken steps as advised to rectify my mistake. I have now submitted the form correctly, along with supporting evidence, as requested, including proof of my communication with the Northern Ireland tribunal service. While | fully acknowledge that my application is late, I hope that it can be considered under the grounds of my ADHD and learning disabilities (dyslexia and dyspraxia), which contribute to challenges with attention, organisation, and processing complex administrative tasks. This was a genuine misunderstanding rather than a deliberate delay. I sincerely apologise for this mistake and any inconvenience caused. I respectfully ask for consideration of my circumstances and hope that my application can still be accepted. Please let me know if any further information is required. Thank you for your time and understanding. I appreciate your consideration”.[25]The accompanying evidence consisted solely of the correspondence with the Northern Ireland Tribunal Service. There was no medical or other evidence about the claimant’s disabilities attached.[26]In its response, the respondent wrote that the claim form was received on 19 January 2025. This is obviously not correct, and on 23 September 2025, Employment Judge Lancaster (who was conducting the initial review of the case under rule 27 Employment Tribunal Procedure rule 2024) wrote to the parties as follows: “The forthcoming preliminary hearing will address any issues arising from the late presentation of the claim in England and Wales, where it was not in fact received until 18th March 2025”.[27]There was then a preliminary hearing for case management on 26 September 2025 before Employment Judge Morgan KC who produced case management orders (dated 10 October 2025) which were sent to the parties on 10 November 2025.[28]The orders include a list of some of the issues but subject to orders to provide more information (as discussed above). That includes the following assertion at paragraph 1.1 of the list of issues:[29]“Given the date the claim form was presented and the dates of early conciliation, any complaint about something that happened before 13 August 2024 may not have been brought in time”.[30]As already mentioned, this is obviously not correct in light of the date of receipt of the claim form. The parties were both aware of this from Employment Judge Lancaster’s directions, but neither party appears to have raised this at the hearing or corrected it afterwards.[31]The claimant was representing herself so it is perhaps understandable why she did not raise it, but the respondent was represented by a solicitor at that hearing and a pupil barrister at the final hearing. We do not know why this was not raised with the Tribunal at the hearing or, if it was, afterwards when the case management orders were produced.[32]In any event, we find that the claimant was well aware, by the time of this final hearing, that her claim was not presented to the correct Tribunal until 18 March 2025.[33]At the final hearing, the claimant did not say anything in her witness statement about the date of her claim or why time should be extended for presenting the claim. The documentary evidence that the claimant submitted that was directly relevant to the extension of time was the letter she had sent to the tribunal (see above). We have also considered, however the evidence about her disability that the claimant submitted: 33.1. Her disability impact statement. This says (as far as is relevant): Processing and Retaining Verbal Information & Navigation: I experience significant difficulty following verbal instructions and cannot retain information on directions or navigation. I am entirely reliant on tools like Google Maps even for familiar locations. For example if part of my planned route of travel changes, I become stressed and unable to find an alternative route and If I ask for assistance I can’t remember the instructions. Reading and Written Communication: I require significantly more time than an average person to read and comprehend, emails, and forms etc. I use programs that read out to me and write for me from my voice at home. Concentration and Focus: I find it extremely difficult to maintain focus on tasks for extended periods and am sensitive to background noise and visual stimuli. Organisation and Time Management: I have pervasive difficulties with executive functions, including poor time estimation (time blindness) and prioritisation. Motor Coordination (Dyspraxia): I am noticeably clumsy and prone to dropping items or bumping into objects, and I struggle with fine motor tasks. I find parking hard due to this, and I will often seek out several empty spaces to be able to park my car in carparks. 33.2. Academic Needs assessment report form December 2024. This records predominantly a list of adaptations for study. It records the fact of a diagnostic assessment form 2015. In respect of any difficulties the claimant has it says “Alexandra needs help with the written aspects of the study, like ensuring prose reads well. Currently, she must go through different time-consuming processes to complete essays, sometimes staying up until 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. to get her work done”. 33.3. It also sets out in detail difficulties the claimant has with reading and processing large and/or complex texts quickly, concentrating while engaged in academic tasks, note taking in lectures, grammar and spelling, managing time, and planning structuring and writing essays and academic writing, As this was for a PGCE, the focus on academic work is understandable. 33.4. A GP letter dated 18 November 2025 which says: “This individual has a history of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), dyslexia, and dyspraxia. These are long-standing neurodevelopmental conditions, with the dyslexia and dyspraxia having been formally identified approximately eleven years ago by an educational psychologist at college. These conditions significantly impact her daily functioning, including her memory and organisational skills. She reports that under stress, she can become very anxious, overwhelmed, and forgetful. For over a year, she has been experiencing low mood and anhedonia, which she relates to a period of significant workplace stress and the onset of perimenopause. Her symptoms include feeling overwhelmed, low self-worth, and struggling with motivation for daily tasks. These difficulties have worsened her underlying ADHD symptoms”. 33.5. It is clear form this evidence that the claimant obviously does have difficulties managing complex written work or complex cognitive tasks, particularly under time pressure. 33.6. However, there is no evidence that the claimant has any difficulty using the internet to check an address, or form which we could infer that she has any difficulty in using the internet to check a relatively straightforward matter like the correct address to send a tribunal claim form. Particularly, there is no evidence of impulsivity or rashness (for example) that might explain why the claimant took one result at face value without checking it. 33.7. We prefer and accept the claimant’s oral evidence that she did not double check the address, or she did not look at it properly, and just assumed all the addresses were the same. We note that the claimant had had four months form the end of her employment to draft a detailed and coherent claim form and left it to the very last minute to submit her claim. We find that the actual reason that the claimant sent the form to the wrong place was simply the assumption she made, without checking, that the address was correct. It was just a mistake. Law[34]For the claims of unfair dismissal and unauthorised deductions from wages, the time limit for bringing a claim is three months from the effective date of termination (the date of the end of the employment), or the date from which the last decision was made respectively.[35]In each case, time may be extended. The conditions that apply are set out in section 111 (2) Employment Rights Act 196 for unfair dismissal and section 23 (4) Employment Rights Act 1996 for unauthorised deductions from wages. The provisions are identical in effect and say, respectively:[36]Section 111: “(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section], an employment tribunal shall not consider a complaint under this section unless it is presented to the tribunal—(a) before the end of the period of three months beginning with the effective date of termination, or(b) within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of that period of three months”[37]Section 23: “(4) Where the employment tribunal is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for a complaint under this section to be presented before the end of the relevant period of three months, the tribunal may consider the complaint if it is presented within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable”.[38]The burden is on the claimant to show that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. Reasonable practicability does not require physical impossibility, but it is a stricter test that “was it reasonable”. There must, on our judgment, be something that presents a barrier or impediment to the claimant in presenting their claim in time. This could be a physical substantive barrier – like being unconscious in hospital, the tribunal systems being down etc, or to could be a severe health difficulty or set of personal circumstances that present a real and substantial challenge to the claimant in presenting the claim in time.[39]The question of reasonable practicability is ultimately a question of fact for the tribunal.[40]Where the reason for the delay is a mistake by the claimant, the claimant can only satisfy the test of reasonable practicability when the mistake was itself reasonable. The mistake will not be reasonable if it arises from the fault of the claimant in not making such inquiries as she should reasonably in all the circumstances have made. (Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan [1978] IRLR 499, [1979] ICR 52, CA,).[41]Whether the period within which the claim is then submitted is reasonable is a matter of fact for the tribunal to determine.[42]For the claims of failure to make reasonable adjustments, the time limit under section 123 Equality Act 2010 is 3 months from the date of the alleged discrimination, or the last incident of alleged discrimination if earlier allegations forms part of conduct extending over a period.[43]The tribunal may, pursuant to section 123 (2) extend time for the presentation of a claim for “such other period as it considers just and equitable”.[44]Again, the burden is on the claimant to show why time should be extended – there is no presumption that time will be extended. It is a question of fact for the tribunal, having regard to all relevant factors, whether time should be extended.[45]In BRITISH COAL CORPORATION (appellants) v. KEEBLE and others (respondents) [1997] IRLR 336, the EAT (as the headnote says) suggested that “the tribunal would be assisted by the factors mentioned in s.33 of the Limitation Act 1980, which deals with the exercise of discretion by the courts in personal injury cases. This requires the court to consider the prejudice which each party would suffer as the result of the decision to be made and also to have regard to all the circumstances of the case and in particular to:(a) the length of and reasons for the delay;(b) the extent to which the cogency of the evidence is likely to be affected by the delay;(c) the extent to which the party sued had cooperated with any requests for information;(d) the promptness with which the plaintiff acted once he or she knew of the facts giving rise to the cause of action; and(e) the steps taken by the plaintiff to obtain appropriate professional advice once he or she knew of the possibility of taking action”.[46]In Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust [2021] ICR D5, the Court of Appeal cautioned against just relying on the Keeble factors as a checklist but that tribunals should consider all relevant factors and, in particular, the length of and reasons for the delay. The Tribunal may also consider that the merits of the case in deciding whether it is just and equitable to extend time.[47]A failure for the claimant to provide any, or any good, explanation for the delay is not necessarily fatal to an extension of time but it is likely to be a relevant factor in most cases.[48]In Bowden v Ministry of Justice UKEAT/0018/17, the EAT held that the principles set out above as to reasonableness of ignorance are relevant to the question of whether it is just and equitable to extend time where a claimant is asserting ignorance of their rights. Or knowledge of the relevant circumstances. In our judgment, the same must apply when considering a mistake of the claimant. Whether the mistake was made unreasonably is relevant, in our judgment, to the assessment of the reasons for the delay and whether there should be an extension of time on just and equitable grounds.Conclusions
[49]All claims were presented outside the three-month time limit for bringing claims. The effective date of termination was 19 September 2024, the very last date of any payment was a week later on 27 September 2024 (the claimant being paid weekly).[50]The claim was presented on 18 March 2025. The last date for presenting a claim was 20 January 2025, one month after the conclusion of the early conciliation. This is the backstop date for bringing a claim.[51]The claims were just less than 2 months out of time. Unfair dismissal and unauthorised deduction form wages[52]In our judgment, it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present her claims in time.[53]There is nothing in the medical evidence we have seen that supports the claimant’s assertions that any of her disabilities affected her ability to send the claim to the correct place. The claimant had had, by 19 January 2025 when she sent her claim to Northern Ireland, 4 months to prepare her claim. She had done so by writing a detailed and relevant claim form. She said that she spent time researching it.[54]The claimant was not under any real pressure of time to find the address and quickly submit it. She had had 4 months to find the correct address and, even when she did submit it on 19 January, she still had a further day to double check the address.[55]The evidence we have seen shows the claimant had difficulties in working under time pressure – like exams, or dealing with complex academic literature and research. Checking an email address is of a wholly different character.[56]The claimant was candid that she just made an assumption and got it wrong. This was unreasonable. Any reasonable person would have double checked before sending such an important document. The claimant failed to do so.[57]We also take judicial notice of the fact that there is very much information about the Employment Tribunal online and the claimant had, in any event, previously been in contact with ACAS.[58]We conclude on balance that the claimant was simply careless, she sent the claim to the wrong place and did not check where she was sending it.[59]By the time the claimant became aware of her mistake she was out of time to present her claims. This is unfortunate for the claimant, but in our judgment it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present her claims for unfair dismissal and unauthorised deductions from wages in time. We do not therefore extend time for the presentation of her claims, the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider those claims and they are dismissed. Failure to make reasonable adjustments[60]We consider briefly the Keeble factors other than the length of and reasons for delay first[61]The extent to which the cogency of the evidence is likely to be affected by the delay:[62]In our judgment, a delay of two months is unlikely to have any significant impact on the cogency of the evidence.[63]The extent to which the party sued had cooperated with any requests for information:[64]This is not relevant to the issues we are considering about extension of time.[65]The promptness with which the plaintiff acted once he or she knew of the facts giving rise to the cause of action:[66]The claimant delayed to almost the last day in presenting her claim. However, she did act relatively promptly in contacting ACAS. The claimant also acted promptly once she received the notice from the Northern Ireland Tribunal.[67]The steps taken by the plaintiff to obtain appropriate professional advice once he or she knew of the possibility of taking action:[68]The claimant did not seek advice -she undertook her own research. She was able to formulate a coherent claim on this basis and she had spoken to ACAS.[69]None of these factors are decisive – they do not, in our judgment, take our deliberations much further.[70]The issues in this case are the length and reason for delay.[71]The delay is significant in that it is two months longer than the three-month limit. On the other hand, it will have had no real practical impact.[72]In respect of the reasons for the delay, we have explained above that the claimant had no good reason. It was a mistake and, in our judgment, an unreasonable one for the reasons we have set out.[73]Claimants cannot expect an extension of time just because it is not a significant period where there is no good reason for the delay. Extensions of time remain the exception and the burden is on the claimant to show the reason and why it is just and equitable to extent time,[74]The claimant has failed to do that in this case. There are no other factors that would justify the tribunal extending time in this particular case where the claimant has failed to demonstrate a reasonable reason for missing the deadline.[75]We have also stepped back and considered whether, overall, it is just and equitable to extend time and in our judgment it is not.[76]For these reasons, the claims for failure to make reasonable adjustments were not brought within 3 months of the last alleged date of discrimination and it is not just and equitable to extend time for the presentation of these claims. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claims and they are dismissed. Final comments[77]The respondent had no real representations to make about the time points. Mr Cook said that his instructions were to challenge anything prior to 13 August 2024 – presumably on the basis that he was instructed that the claim form was received on 19 January 2025.[78]This is not correct, and the respondent was informed of this by Employment Judge Lancaster on 23 September 2025. Regardless of this, the tribunal is obliged to consider time points and come to its own determination, which we have done as set out above. A respondent cannot explicitly or by implication waive time limit points.[79]Secondly, although we have not set out any findings of fact about the substantive claims as it is not proportionate to do so, it is likely in our judgment that the claimant’s claims would have been largely or wholly unsuccessful in any event on the basis of the evidence we have heard, Approved by: