Mr G S Sidhu v Amazon UK Services Ltd: 3201466/2024
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 3201466/2024
Between
Mr G S SidhuClaimantAmazon UK Services LtdRespondent
Before
Employment Judge C LewisIn person for claimantMr P Sangha for respondentMr P Sangha - Counsel for respondentDate 7 January 2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The claims of unfair dismissal, breach of contract (wrongful dismissal) and failure to pay outstanding holiday pay were not presented within the applicable time limit. It was reasonably practicable to do so. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claims and the claims are therefore dismissed. Employment Judge C Lewis Dated: 7January 2025 NotesReasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. Public access to employment tribunal decisionsJudgments and reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimant(s) and respondent(s) in a case. Case Number: 3201466/2024 Recording and TranscriptionPlease note that if a Tribunal hearing has been recorded you may request a transcript of the recording, for which a charge may be payable. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings, and accompanying Guidance, which can be found here: https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation-practice-directions/[2]Case Number: 3201466/2024 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr G S Sidhu Respondent: Amazon Services UK Ltd Heard at: East London Employment Tribunal On: 7 January 2025 Before:
REASONS
[1]By a claim from presented on 20 July 2024 following a period of Acas early conciliation between 16 May 2024 and 26 June 2024 the Claimant sought to bring claims for unfair dismissal, breach of contract (wrongful dismissal) and failure to pay outstanding holiday pay. The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as an Associate from 1 September 2018 until his summary dismissal on 6 February 2024.[2]The time limits for bringing complaints to the employment tribunal are set out in statute. The time limit for an unfair dismissal claim it set out in section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 which provides that:(1) A complaint may be presented to an employment tribunal against an employer by any person that he was unfairly dismissed by the employer. But that is subject to the time limit contained in subsection 2, which provides that:(2) … 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 [which means the date the dismissal takes effect], or Case Number: 3201466/2024 2 (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.[3]The time limit is echoed in the provisions that apply to breach of contract claims under the Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) Order 1994, article 7, and in the Working Time Regulations 1998, regulation 30 (2) in respect of claims for unpaid holiday pay; the same test is applicable to each of the three claims.[4]I heard evidence from Mr Sidhu and he explained what he did in the period between the end of his employment and the date of presenting his claim.
Findings of fact
[5]I made the following findings of fact:[6]The Claimant was summarily dismissed on 6 of February 2024, the end of the relevant period of ‘within three months’ of that date is the 5 May 2024.[7]The Claimant contacted his solicitor within one week of his dismissal and instructed them to act on his behalf. His solicitor wrote to the Respondent to appeal against his dismissal on 13 February 2024.[8]The Claimant then had a period of considerable concern and distress about his health and he was hospitalised for 15 nights; by 11 April 2024 he was well enough to attend the appeal hearing.[9]The Claimant attended an appeal hearing on 11 April 2024 and the Respondent wrote to the Claimant by email on 3 May 2024 informing him that his appeal had been unsuccessful. Mr Sidhu told me that he forwarded any emails from the Respondent straight on to his solicitors as soon as he received them. I find that he forwarded the appeal outcome e-mail straight to his solicitor. Mr Sidhu pointed to the delay by the Respondent in sending the outcome following the appeal meeting on the 11th of April 2024.[10]Acas was contacted and early conciliation was commenced on 16 May 2024; the early conciliation concluded on 26 June 2024 and an early conciliation certificate was issued. The claim form (ET1) was presented on 20 July 2024 at which time the Claimant’s solicitors were still acting for him and they completed and submitted the claim form on his behalf.[11]In his evidence, which I accept, the Claimant told me that he left everything in the hands of his solicitors and followed their advice; he did not know anything about contacting Acas until after his solicitors had come off the record.[12]Based on what Mr Sidhu has told me it is apparent that his solicitor was responsible for contacting Acas on his behalf and that they did so after the three month time limit had already expired. The claim form was presented outside the three month time limit. Case Number: 3201466/2024 3[13]There is statutory provision for the time to bring the complaint to be paused during a period of Acas early conciliation, if Acas is contacted within the three month period. If the Claimant’s solicitor had acted promptly and contacted Acas on receipt of the appeal outcome the Claimant would have had the benefit of an extension to the time limit for the duration of the early conciliation period, and, where the time limit is otherwise due to expire during that period, an additional month after the issue of the early conciliation certificate.[14]In this case however Acas were not contacted within three months of the date of dismissal. Acas was not contacted until the 16th of May 2024 which was already outside of the time limit and that has no bearing on the time running. The claim form was not presented until the 20th of July 2024. Issue for decision[15]I therefore have to decide whether it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant to have brought his claim in time and, if it was not, whether he brought it within a reasonable further period. Submissions[16]Mr Sangha in his submissions identified that it appears that the default, or in other words the reason for not bringing the claim in time, is due to the Claimant’s solicitors not lodging the claim in time, there does not appear to be any other explanation.[17]Mr Sangha referred to the case of Marks and Spencer v Williams Ryan [2005] EWCA Civ 470, 2005] ICR 1293, CA which is well known to employment lawyers and is an authority of the Court of Appeal which is binding on me as an employment tribunal judge. In that case the Court of Appeal held that where a Claimant instructs solicitors and the solicitor fails to meet the time limits through their negligence, the Claimant cannot rely on the solicitor’s failure as making it not reasonably practicable for them to comply with the time limits.[18]The Claimant told me in his submissions that he believes he did everything right, and he trusted in the professionals. The Claimant’s evidence was clear: he told me that he instructed his solicitor within one week of being dismissed, he left matters in their hands and he followed their advice. I take him at his word.
Conclusions
[19]Mr Sidhu pointed to delay by the Respondent in sending the outcome following the appeal meeting on the 11th of April, however wating for the outcome of an appeal does not extend the time limit and his solicitors ought to have known that the time limit was running. The onus is on the Claimant to bring the claim in time and on his legal representatives to diarise those time limits and comply with them regardless of the actions of the employer. In any event I have found that it was still reasonably practicable to present Case Number: 3201466/2024 4 the claim in time once the appeal outcome had been received on 3 May 2024. If they had contacted Acas before 5 May that would have stopped the clock running for the duration of the early conciliation period and the Claimant would have had an additional month at the end of the early conciliation period in which to lodge his claim.[20]I find that Mr Sidhu’s case falls within the principle identified in Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd [1974] ICR 53, CA further explained in Wall’s Meat Co Ltd v Khan [1979] ICR 52, CA, and confirmed in Marks and Spencer v Williams-Ryan [2005] ICR 1293, CA that ignorance or mistaken belief in respect of the applicable time limit will not be reasonable if it arises from the fault of the Claimant’s solicitors in not giving him such information as they should reasonably in al the circumstances have given him. Further, if the solicitors had exercised reasonable diligence they could have presented the claim in time.[21]It appears in the circumstances of this case the fault does clearly lie with the Claimant’s solicitors.[22]I explained to the Claimant that I had great sympathy for him but the case of Marks and Spencer v Williams Ryan is binding on me; in this case the reason for the default in not meeting the time limit must lie at the door of his solicitors.[23]The Claimant may well have recourse to a remedy against his solicitor if they are found to have been negligent but that is not something within my jurisdiction to decide. All I can do is suggest that the Claimant seeks some advice about that, possibly from the Citizens Advice Bureau.[24]Unfortunately for the Claimant, the Court of Appeal authority is clear. I have found that it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant, through his solicitor, to have brought the claim in time and it was not brought within the time limit. I therefore find that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claims for unfair dismissal, for wrongful dismissal - which was brought as a breach of contract claim, or for failure to pay holiday pay on termination of employment.