Ms L Hruskova v Honeywell Avionics Systems Ltd: 3305996/2024
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 3305996/2024
Between
Ms L HruskovaClaimantHoneywell Avionics Systems LtdRespondent
Before
Employment Judge BoothIn person for claimantDate 7 October 2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The complaint of unfair dismissal was submitted after the expiration of the 3 month time limit in section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.[2]It was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present her complaint to the Tribunal within the 3 month time limit in section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, but she failed to do so.[3]The Tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction to consider the claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal and the claim is therefore dismissed.
REASONS
[1]The claimant brings a complaint that the respondent unfairly dismissed her. A public preliminary hearing took place to determine whether the complaint was presented to the Tribunal in time and, if not, whether it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the complaint in time and, if not, whether the complaint was presented within a further reasonable period.[2]The Tribunal had sight of an agreed bundle of documents running to 125 pages (any reference to page numbers in a bundle within these reasons refer to this bundle) and the claimant’s witness statement running to 3 pages. The Tribunal also had sight of an additional bundle prepared by the claimant earlier in proceedings and running to 230 pages (where these documents are referred to it will be expressly stated). Issues to be Determined[3]Was the unfair dismissal complaint made within the time limit in section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996? The Tribunal will decide:a. Was the complaint made to the Tribunal within three months of the effective date of termination of employment?b. If not, was it reasonably practicable for the complaint to be made to the Tribunal within the time limit?c. If it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be made to the Tribunal within the time limit, was it made within a reasonable period?
Findings of Fact
[4]The claimant was dismissed by the respondent with immediate effect, without notice or payment in lieu of notice, on the grounds of gross misconduct [pages 68 to 70 bundle].[5]The claimant was informed of her dismissal verbally on 11 December 2023 and asked whether she would submit an appeal [WS paragraph 3]. The claimant also received written confirmation of dismissal by email and letter on 11 December 2023 [pages 68 to 70 bundle].[6]The claimant described in evidence that she was aware on 11 December 2023 that she only had until midnight on 11 December 2023 to access any information she may need for her appeal before her access to the respondent’s systems was stopped [WS paragraph 6].[7]On 18 December 2023, the claimant submitted an appeal [page 75 to 81 bundle]. The appeal hearing took place on 23 January 2024 and the appeal outcome was sent to the claimant on 28 February 2024 [page 90 to 91 bundle].[8]There is no information within the appeal process documents to indicate that the claimant was reinstated by the respondent pending the outcome of her appeal and nor does the claimant suggest that this is the case. The claimant confirmed in evidence that her access to the respondent’s systems stopped with effect from midnight on 11 December 2023. Payslip information provided by the claimant in her separate bundle of documents of 230 pages, indicates that the claimant’s normal monthly salary was £8,179 per month gross before December 2023 and £2,726 gross in December 2023, which indicates that the claimant’s pay stopped with effect from 11 December 2023.[9]The Tribunal finds that the claimant’s effective date of termination (EDT) is 11 December 2023.[10]The claimant was not aware of her right to bring a claim of unfair dismissal at the EDT. The claimant described in evidence that she found out about her right to bring a claim at some time during January or February 2024, while she was waiting for the outcome of her appeal. The claimant confirmed that she accessed the gov.uk information on time limits for bringing a claim referred to in her witness statement [WS paragraph 10] in January or February 2024.[11]The information accessed by the claimant states: Making a claim to an employment tribunal Are you in time? You usually have to make a claim to the tribunal within 3 months of your employment ending or the problem happening. In exceptional circumstances the tribunal can accept your claim late. If your claim is late, you must explain why – the tribunal will decide if it can still hear your claim. Learn about when you can apply.[12]The underlined wording is a hyperlink, which takes the reader to further information. It states: Time limits You must usually make a claim to the tribunal within 3 months of the problem at work happening: if you think you’ve lost your job unfairly the 3 month period begins from the date your employment ended if your claim is about discrimination or a dispute over pay, the 3 month period begins when the incident or dispute happened[13]The claimant described in evidence that she saw the information detailed at paragraph 11 above in January or February 2024, but not the additional information detailed at paragraph 12 above. The claimant described that she had also accessed information on ACAS website at around that time but could not recall what that said. The claimant conceded in evidence that she could have done more research at the time, but she was waiting for the outcome of her appeal. The Tribunal finds that it would have been reasonably practicable for the claimant to carry out some further research and (at the very least) click on the hyperlink shown underlined in paragraph 11 above and access the additional information in paragraph 12 above about the time limits for bringing a complaint when she did her initial research in January or February 2024. Had the claimant done so, she would have been aware that her complaint of unfair dismissal had to be brought within 3 months of the date her employment ended.[14]The appeal outcome letter of 28 February 2024 states “the decision/ outcome of your appeal is final, there is no further right of appeal”. It also states “if you have any further queries about the contents of this letter or any other matter, please call Kally Kandola on…” [page 91 bundle].[15]On 12 March 2024, the claimant submitted further queries by email to Kelly Kandola. The claimant explained that this was because she had been informed that all of her evidence would be considered in the appeal process and she felt that the appeal outcome letter did not sufficiently comment on her evidence or indicate that it had been considered.[16]On 20 March 2024, Kelly Kandola responded to confirm that “you will note that the Company’s position is that our internal process has been exhausted and therefore we are unable to assist you further in connection with the matters you refer to” [page 98 bundle]. The claimant asserts that the appeal process did not conclude until she received Kelly Kandola’s email of 20 March 2024 [WS paragraph 10]. The Tribunal finds that it was not reasonable for the claimant to conclude that the appeal process was continuing after the appeal outcome letter of 28 February 2024, which expressly stated that the outcome was final and there would be no further right of appeal [page 91 bundle].[17]The claimant described in evidence that, although she became aware of her right to bring a complaint in the Tribunal and of the existence of a 3 month time limit in January or February 2024, she decided to wait until the appeal process was concluded before presenting her complaint to the Tribunal because, if her appeal was successful, she would be reinstated and would not need to bring a claim. Given that the appeal process took over two months to conclude, the Tribunal finds that it was both possible and reasonable for the claimant to present her complaint to the Tribunal before finding out the outcome of her appeal.[18]The claimant’s interpretation of the information detailed at paragraph 11 above (“you usually have to make a claim to the tribunal within 3 months of your employment ending or the problem happening”) is that she could present her complaint within 3 months of when the internal appeal process was concluded because this is her perception of when the problem happened [WS paragraph 10]. The Tribunal finds that it was not reasonable for the claimant to interpret the information detailed at paragraph 11 above in this way because:a. It is a more reasonable interpretation of the information to conclude that if the complaint relates to employment ending, then it must be presented within 3 months of employment ending and not some unspecified later date.b. At the time the claimant reviewed the information detailed at paragraph 11 above in January or February 2024, she was aware that her employment had ended on the EDT and she was not aware of the “problem” of 20 March 2024 as it had not occurred. The claimant therefore chose to interpret the information as meaning that she could present her complaint within 3 months of her employment ending or choose to wait until a future event that she perceived to be a problem occurred and restart the 3 months time limit from then.c. The claimant’s interpretation would have the effect of increasing the time limit for presenting a complaint of unfair dismissal beyond the scope of that set out in section 111 ERA.d. Further, the Tribunal has found that it would have been reasonably practicable for the claimant to access the additional information detailed at paragraph 12 above and that this would have avoided the claimant’s erroneous interpretation of the time limits.[19]The claimant described in evidence that from 20 March 2024 onwards, she was collating evidence to present her complaint to the Tribunal. The claimant described that she also began to research the legal process for bringing a Tribunal claim alongside this, but could recall when she did this. The claimant later confirmed in evidence that she found out more about the legal process in the first few days of June 2024 but still did not contact ACAS until 18 June 2024 because she was still collating evidence. The Tribunal finds that it would have been reasonably practicable for the claimant to research the legal process for presenting a complaint to the Tribunal at the time she became aware of her right to do so in January or February 2024 and, failing that, to take the opportunity to conduct such research before she had completed the collation of her evidence. Further, the Tribunal finds that it would have been reasonably practicable for the claimant to contact ACAS in connection with the process for presenting a complaint to the Tribunal as soon as she became aware of the need to do so.[20]The claimant described in evidence that, at some time in June 2024, when she had collated evidence, she took legal advice from her niece’s legal office in the Czech Republic at a cost of £1,753. The claimant described that the legal advice was limited to reviewing the evidence she had collated to advise what she could or could not use. The claimant described that her niece’s legal office could not advise her on the legal process for bringing a Tribunal claim in the UK and that she did not use a solicitor or legal advisor who could give that advice because she believed it would be expensive. The Tribunal finds that the claimant understood the benefit of seeking legal advice in connection with her intention to present a complaint to the Tribunal and that it would have been reasonably practicable for the claimant to source advice from someone who could advise on the legal process for doing so in the UK.[21]The claimant contacted ACAS on 18 June 2024. The ACAS Early Conciliation Certificate states that the conciliation period started and ended on 18 June 2024. The claimant presented her claim to the Tribunal on 18 June 2024.
Relevant Law
[22]Section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA), states that the Tribunal shall not consider a complaint by any person that he was unfairly dismissed unless it is presented to the Tribunal:(a) Before the end of the period of three months beginning with the effective date of termination (EDT), 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.[23]Section 97 ERA defines the effective date of termination. Section 97(1)(b) provides that in relation to an employee whose contract of employment is terminated without notice, the effective date of termination means the date when termination takes effect.[24]Section 207B ERA permits an extension to the time limit in section 111(2) ERA in connection with time spent in early conciliation with ACAS. Section 207B does not apply in this case because the claimant did not contact ACAS until after the expiration of the time limit in section 111(2) ERA.[25]Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd 1974 ICR 53, CA states that section 111(2) ERA should be given “a liberal construction in favour of” the claimant. However, Porter v Bandridge Ltd 1978 ICR 943, CA states that the burden for proving that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented in time rests on the claimant. Palmer and another v Southendon-Sea Borough Council 1984 ICR 372, CA states that “reasonably practicable” means something like “reasonably feasible”. Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser EAT 0165/07 states that “it is not simply a matter of looking at what was possible but to ask whether, on the facts of the case as found, it was reasonable to expect that which was possible to have been done”.[26]Palmer and another v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council 1984 ICR 372, CA confirmed the earlier case of Bodha v Hampshire Area Health Authority 1982 ICR 200, EAT that the fact of an ongoing internal appeal process is not (of itself) sufficient reason to justify a finding that it was not reasonably practicable to present a complaint within the time limit.[27]Porter v Bandridge Ltd 1978 ICR 943, CA further states that if a claimant misses the time limit because of ignorance about their rights, the Tribunal must consider what opportunities the claimant had to find out about their rights, whether they took them, and if not why not. Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Brophy 2019 EWCA Civ 2490 CA confirmed that if a claimant misses the time limit because they are ignorant about the existence of a time limit or about when it expires in their case, the question is whether that ignorance or mistake is reasonable, taking into account any enquiries that the claimant or their advisor should have made. If the ignorance or mistake was not reasonable then it follows that it will have been reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time. Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton 1991 ICR, EAT states that where a claimant knows about their right to complain of unfair dismissal, they are under an obligation to seek information about how to enforce that right. Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd v G Britton [2022] EAT 108 states “A person who is considering bringing a claim for unfair dismissal is expected to appraise themselves of the time limits that apply; it is their responsibility to do so”.[28]In Aghedosa v Urbaser Ltd ET Case No. 1403909/20 the claimant was dismissed on 10 January 2020, the time limit therefore elapsed on 9 April 2020. The respondent’s internal appeal process was concluded on 6 March 2020. The claimant was advised by a friend that he might have a claim for unfair dismissal in March 2020. However, the claimant failed to do any research into the legal process for bringing a claim and did not present his claim to the Tribunal until 25 July 2020. The Tribunal held that (although it was lockdown) the claimant had access to the internet and resources available online, was an intelligent person and there was nothing stopping him from informing himself of his rights. The Tribunal concluded that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present his claim in time i.e. on or before 9 April 2020. Discussion and Decision[29]The Tribunal has found that the effective date of termination (EDT) was 11 December 2023 and that the time limit for presenting the complaint of unfair dismissal expired at midnight on 10 March 2024. The outcome of the claimant’s appeal was communicated on 28 February 2024. The complaint was presented on 18 June 2024, which was outside of the time limit in section 111 ERA.[30]The Tribunal concludes that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present her claim to the Tribunal before midnight on 10 March 2024, for the following reasons:a. The claimant became aware in January or February 2024 that she could bring a claim for unfair dismissal. The claimant conducted some initial research of gov.uk and ACAS in January or February 2024 and discovered that there was a 3 month time limit for bringing a claim against the respondent that ran from either the EDT or the date of the problem complained of. Further information about the time limits was signposted and accessible to the claimant in the information she read on gov.uk via a hyperlink. The claimant elected not to take the opportunity to explore this or conduct further research at this time although it was reasonably practicable for her to do so. The claimant’s explanation that she was waiting for the outcome of her appeal before exploring this hyperlink or conducting further research is not reasonable and nor does it align with the fact that the claimant did not conduct further research into the legal process or applicable time limits until June 2024.b. The claimant stated that she waited until the outcome of her internal appeal process before presenting her complaint, because if she was reinstated on appeal it would negate the need to present a complaint. The fact of an ongoing internal appeal does not render it not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present a claim to the Tribunal. Had the claimant taken the opportunity to inform herself of the application of the 3 month time limit (as above), it would have been reasonably practicable for the claimant to present her claim to the Tribunal whilst awaiting the outcome of the internal appeal. In any event, the outcome of the appeal process was communicated to the claimant in writing on 28 February 2024 meaning it would have been reasonably practicable for the claimant to present her claim to the Tribunal within the 3 month time limit, even after receiving the appeal outcome. Further, the claimant’s explanation that she was waiting for the outcome of her appeal before presenting her claim does not align with the fact that the claimant did not present her claim until 18 June 2024.c. The claimant’s contention that the internal appeal process was not concluded until 20 March 2024 is not reasonable given the clear information in the appeal outcome letter of 28 February 2024 that the outcome was final and that there was no further right of appeal. Further, the claimant’s contention that her complaint of unfair dismissal arises, not from the date of dismissal, but from a later “problem” being the outcome of the appeal is not reasonable as set out in the findings at paragraph 18 above. Again, had the claimant taken the opportunity to inform herself of the application of the 3 month time limit (as above), she would have understood that the 3 month time limit ran from the EDT of 11 December 2023 and not any subsequent date or problem.d. The Tribunal concludes that the claimant was under an obligation to inform herself of the time limits applicable to her claim and that there were opportunities for her to do so that she did not take although it was reasonably practicable for her to do so; accordingly the claimant’s ignorance of the time limits is not reasonable.[31]As it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present her complaint within the time limit, and the Tribunal is not required to consider whether the complaint was presented within a reasonable period following the expiration of the time limit. However, for the sake of completeness, the Tribunal finds that the complaint was not presented within a reasonable period after 10 March 2024 for the following reasons:a. The claimant became aware that her appeal had not been successful on 28 February 2024. The claimant perceives that the appeal process was not exhausted until 20 March 2024. Although the Tribunal finds that the claimant’s perception is not reasonable, whether the appeal was regarded as concluded on 28 February 2024 or 20 March 2024, the claimant still did not present her complaint to the Tribunal until 18 June 2024.b. The claimant has offered no explanation for the delay in presenting her complaint other than that she was collating evidence for her claim. The Tribunal finds that it was not reasonable for the claimant to spend approximately 3 months (or longer) collating evidence before presenting her complaint to the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal finds that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present her complaint to the Tribunal without waiting until she had collated her evidence.c. The claimant accessed and paid for legal advice in this time but elected to take advice from an advisor who was not qualified or able to advise on the legal process or time limits for bringing a claim in an Employment Tribunal in England or Wales due to the perceived expense. The Tribunal concludes that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to access free advice on the time limits for bringing a claim including that at gov.uk as detailed above or to utilise legal advice services from someone qualified or able to advise on the legal process or time limits for bringing a claim in an Employment Tribunal in England or Wales.[32]The Tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction to consider the claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal and the Tribunal’s judgment is that the claim is therefore dismissed. Approved by: