[1]The Claimant brings to the Employment Tribunal claims of constructive unfair dismissal following her resignation on 2nd January 2019. There is no dispute that that was the effective date of termination of her employment. In addition to the claim of constructive unfair dismissal the Claimant brings a breach of contract claim i.e. wrongful dismissal.[2]At a telephone Preliminary Hearing held before Employment Judge Heal on 17th March 2020 the issue of whether or not the claims were in time or not would be determined at a Preliminary Hearing scheduled to take place on 11th September 2020. The Preliminary Hearing was conducted by myself to determine those issues.[3]In addition to the constructive dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims the Claimant brings discrimination claims. The Respondent has also submitted that those claims were presented out of time and should as a consequence be dismissed.[4]In the event of any of the claims proceeding to a full Hearing the Respondents submitted that the Claimant’s claims had no reasonable prospect of success or, in the alternative, little reasonable prospect of success and therefore should be struck out or, as the case may be, the Claimant should be ordered to pay a deposit as a condition of continuing with those claims.[5]In the course of the Hearing I heard detailed submissions from Ms Duncan on behalf of the Claimant. Ms Duncan is a qualified barrister and is also the Claimant’s sister. Mr Crozier of counsel attended on behalf of the Respondent. In addition to hearing submissions from both of them I heard evidence from Ms Duncan in respect of the circumstances surrounding the presentation of the claims to the Employment Tribunal.[6]Section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996 sets out the statutory time limit within which a claim of unfair dismissal must be presented to an Employment Tribunal. Section 111(2) states that an Employment Tribunal shall not consider a complaint unless it is presented to the Tribunal before the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the effective date of termination. Such a date would require the Claimant to present her claim of constructive unfair dismissal on or before 1st April 2019. Similar provisions in respect of the Claimant’s application for wrongful dismissal i.e. breach of contract are contained within the Employment Tribunal’s Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. Section 111(2)b of the 1996 Act states – ‘within such further period as the Tribunal considers reasonable in case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of that period of 3 months’.[7]Those statutory time limits were altered by the introduction of section 207B Employment Rights Act 1996. It is a requirement of issuing such proceedings that a Claimant shall first undertake the ACAS early conciliation process. This requires consideration of the date a Claimant first contacted ACAS with notification of any complaint and the subsequent date ACAS issue an Early Conciliation Certificate. The statute defines day A as the date a notification is made to ACAS and day B is the date of which the Claimant receives an Early Conciliation Certificate.[8]Having heard evidence from Ms Duncan and having perused the relevant documents and having heard submissions I determine that the date ACAS were notified on the Claimant’s claims was 13th March 2019. That was day A. The ACAS certificate is dated 13th April 2019 and I am satisfied that that is day B for the purposes of section 207B of the 1996 Act. The statutory provisions therefore required the Claimant to present her claims of constructive unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal on or before 13th May 2019.[9]Ms Duncan stated that she did not see the certificate that had been emailed to her from ACAS until Monday 15th April 2019 and attempted to persuade me that that was consequently day B. I do not agree and I conclude that day B was the date ACAS issued the certificate which was at 00.00 hours on Saturday 13th April 2019. That of course still gave the Claimant and Ms Duncan plenty of time to present the claims which, as I have stated, must have been presented on or before 13th May 2019.[10]On 15th May 2019 (by which time any presentation was already two days late) Ms Duncan on behalf of her sister attempted to send via an email her ET1 claim form to the Tribunal. That is not the correct way of presenting any claim. The presentation of a Claim to an Employment Tribunal must be done in accordance with the appropriate Presidential Practice Directions – rules 8(1) and 85(2). Those directions prescribe 3 alternative methods by which a claim may be presented to an Employment Tribunal namely:(1) Online using the online form submission service(2) By post to the Employment Tribunal central office (which is in Leicester) or;(3) in person to one of the Employment Tribunal offices listed in the schedule to the practice direction[11]In my judgment no other method of presenting the claim is permissible. This includes presentation of a claim via email. Ms Duncan attempted to persuade me that there were other methods of a presenting a claim but I reject her submission. She stated that emails which she received from the Employment Tribunal Service after she attempted to email the claim on 15th May 2020 were misleading. I do not agree. They are simply a generic form of reply which the Tribunal submit as and when they receive any email from any party. They cannot possibly be said to have acknowledged the presentation of a claim in the way that a claim should have been presented in accordance with the rules. Although Ms Duncan is the Claimant’s sister she is more than that. She is a qualified barrister and at the time, was practising in addition to other disciplines, employment law. She was in partnership with an individual who she said specialised in employment law. She was instructed by her sister to present the claim and her sister should have expected her to have presented the Claim in the proper way.[12]Ms Duncan realised within days that the Claim had not been presented in the correct way and then submitted the Claim by post. It was eventually received by the Tribunal service on 22nd May 2019 and that was the date it was formally presented. The Claim therefore was presented 9 days outside the statutory time limit.[13]Ms Duncan attempted to persuade me that it was not reasonably practicable for the Claim to be presented on or before 13th May 2019. In aid of this submission she said that she has been confused about the 3 requirements regarding the presentation of claims. That is no excuse in my judgement. The rules are clear and particularly clear to any lawyer. She stated that her sister had not been well for the 12 month period prior to May 2019 and it has been difficult for her to obtain instructions. I took note however of the fact that the Claimant was accompanied by her sister at internal hearings around the time her employment was terminated and indeed many months before that in June and August 2018. Ms Duncan was well acquainted of the relevant facts necessary to present the Claim. The presentation of a claim does not necessarily need to include each and every factual allegation upon which a Claimant relies. Ideally that would be the case but many cases are presented without the full particulars being contained within a claim. Ms Duncan, as a professional person, ought to have realised that the time limited expired on 13th May 2019 and even if she did not have full instructions from her sister she would have been able to submit a sufficiently detailed ET1 claim form to enable the Claim to be presented in time. It would always have been open to her later in the event to apply to add further particulars and/or to present an amended claim. In any event the attempts made by Ms Duncan to present the Claim on 15th May 2019 would have been to no avail due to the fact that on that date any presentation would have been two days late.[14]In essence Ms Duncan was negligent in presenting the Claimant’s Claim out of time. In this regard I make reference to the old established authority of Dedman v British Building and Engineering (1974) ICR53 in which Lord Denning held – ‘if a man engages skilled advisers to act for him and they mistake the time limit and present the claim too late – he is out. His remedy is against them’. This is not a case where the Claimant or indeed her representative were ignorant of the time limits. It was an error made by the Claimant’s representative in the method the Claim was presented as well as a delay in such presentation. This does not mean in my judgement that it was not reasonably practicable for the Claimant to present her Claim in time. As a consequence therefore I do not extend the time limit. The Claimant’s claims of unfair constructive dismissal and/or wrongful dismissal were presented out of time and are therefore dismissed.[15]Mr Crozier, on behalf of the Respondent, then made an application that the Claimant’s claims of unlawful discrimination should also be dismissed on the basis that that they were submitted out of time. There is a dispute between the parties as to the last act of unlawful discrimination complained of. Mr Crozier submitted that the last possible act of discrimination could only have been events complained of by the Claimant in May 2018 and that the presentation of a claim to an Employment Tribunal on 22nd May 2019 meant that the Claim was approximately 9 months out of time. Ms Duncan on behalf of the Claimant submitted that the last act she complains of in fact was the submission of a letter from the Respondent to herself dated 18th December 2019. I note, as submitted by Mr Crozier, that the Claimant’s application to amend her pleadings to include reference to the letter of 18th December 2019 was previously dismissed by Employment Judge Heal. I take therefore the last act complained of were the events ending in May 2018. The claims, as stated therefore, on the face of it are 9 months out of time.[16]Section 123(1)(a) Equality Act 2010 requires any claim relating to work related discrimination to be presented to an Employment Tribunal within the period of 3 months beginning with date of the act complained of (or if more than one the last of a series of acts). That time period has similar extensions to the unfair dismissal legislation relating to requirement to undertake a period of ACAS early conciliation. The same dates applicable in relation to this Claimant’s notification to ACAS and the date the Early Conciliation Certificate was issued remain the same. However I have a discretion not available to me in respect unfair and wrongful dismissal claims to extend the time limit for presenting a compliant where it is just and equitable to do so pursuant to the provisions on section 123(1)(b) Equality Act 2010. That is a broad discretion. In determining this issue I have considered the Court of Appeal Judgment in Robertson v Bexley Community Centre (2003) IRLR434. I remind myself that there is no presumption that the time period should be extended and in fact the reverse is the case. The exercise of such a discretion is the exception rather than the rule. In determining this issue I have considered the reasons for why the Claim was submitted late and I have also considered whether or not if exercising my discretion in favour of the Claimant would cause any degree of prejudice to the Respondent. I have also considered the relevant provisions contained in section 33 Limitation Act 1980. Ms Duncan explained to me in detail the state of her sister’s health from May 2018 to May 2019. This was supported by medical evidence. I read and took into account the content of a letter from her GP surgery dated 17th June 2020. It is clear from the content of that letter that the Claimant was complaining that she was suffering from various degrees of stress and anxiety from May 2018 onwards. She was given appropriate medication. It was not until May 2019 that the Claimant was able to provide more detailed instructions to her sister in order for the Claim to be drafted and presented. I have also taken into account the Claimant’s sister’s misunderstanding regarding the method of presentation of a claim to an Employment Tribunal which although it did not enable the Claimant to escape the statutory provisions relating to the presentation of unfair and wrongful dismissal claims was something, in my judgement, I could take into account in exercising my discretion. I am not satisfied that any delay in issuing the claim has caused any particular prejudice or prejudice which will affect the Respondent’s ability to properly defend these proceedings. The Respondent’s Response to the various allegations is very detailed and clearly they have documentary evidence to support their version of events. They are not relying solely on people’s memories after a period of time. It may well be that they can call witnesses in any event who are able to recollect the events with such sufficient detail and clarity to enable them to present evidence. Mr Crozier was not in a position to argue otherwise[17]I conclude therefore it is just and equitable to extend the statutory time limit in relation to the discrimination claims and those matters shall proceed to a Liability Hearing. The Liability Hearing is already listed to take place at the Reading Employment Tribunal commencing on 15th March 2021 and ending on 22nd March 2021 and those dates shall remain.[18]I am not persuaded by the Respondent’s submissions that the discrimination claims should be either struck out or that the Claimant should be ordered to pay a deposit as a condition of continuing with those claims. The claims involve a number of factual allegations that can only be determined by a full Tribunal hearing all the evidence.