Miss D Adams-Garvin v Lifeways Community Care Ltd: 1804450/2025
JUDGMENT
ON A RECONSIDERATION The claimant’s application for a reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Judgment sent to the parties on 6 February 2026 is refused as there is no reasonable prospect of the Judgment being varied or revoked.REASONS
Whether or not the claimant received the call from the respondent on 19 November 2024 whilst attending a funeral was not decisive in the tribunal concluding, on the evidence, that her employment was terminated, as communicated to her, on that date. The tribunal engaged in its considerations with the possibility that the claimant may not have been able to hear clearly what was said to her. If employment was terminated on that day, then ACAS Early Conciliation commenced after the expiry of the primary time limit. There was no extension of time to submit the claim. In such scenario, whether or not the claimant attempted to submit her tribunal complaint is relevant only to the length of time after the expiry of the primary time limit the claimant delayed in taking steps to initiate proceedings. However, it had still been reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within the primary time limit. The claimant seeking to commence proceedings on 2 May 2025 rather than 26 June 2025, when the claim form was received, is immaterial to the tribunal’s determination under Section 111(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant has provided documentation now which she says supports her having attempted to submit her tribunal claim on 2 (or 3) May 2025. However, such evidence was or ought reasonably to have available to the claimant to produce at the preliminary hearing. The claimant had not referred in her witness statement evidence to her attempt to make this submission at all. 10.2 Judgment - rule 61 March Case No: 1804450/2025 In any event, this new evidence is relevant only if the claimant’s effective date of termination was later than that found by the tribunal and then in circumstances where the attempted submission involved a mistake on the claimant’s part - as at 2 May 2025, it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been validly submitted. Otherwise, the claimant in her application is simply seeking to reargue points which were fully argued at the preliminary hearing and which the tribunal has determined.