R Rayner v St Vincent de Paul Society (England and Wales): 6015206/2025
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 6015206/2025
Between
R RaynerClaimantSt Vincent de Paul Society (England and Wales)Respondent
Before
Employment Judge Ayre, sitting aloneLaura Halsall (instructed by counsel) for respondentDate 17 July 2026
JUDGMENT
The claim is out of time, and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear it.
REASONS
[1]The claimant was employed by the respondent as a Senior Finance Manager from 12 June 2023 until 12 November 2024. She began Early Conciliation on 29 January 2025 and the Early Conciliation Certificate was issued on 12 March 2025. She presented her claim on 28 April 2025.[2]A Preliminary Hearing took place on 9 January 2026. At that hearing:[1]It was clarified that the claimant is bringing a complaint of unfair dismissal for whistleblowing, under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996;[2]The case was listed for hearing today and for a final hearing in October 2026; and[3]Case management orders were made. 3. One of the Orders made at the last hearing was for the claimant to provide further information about the protected disclosures she said she made to the respondent. The claimant has not provided that information. She apologised for not having done so and said she thought the Order related to further information about why her claim was presented late.
The hearing
[4]Today’s hearing was listed to determine the following issues:
The hearing
[1]Was it reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time?[2]If not, within what further period was it reasonable?[3]Does the claim have little, no or arguable prospects of success (and if none or little, whether to strike out the claim or make a deposit order); and[4]If the claim survives to give further directions for the final hearing.[5]In light of my conclusions on the first two issues, it has not been necessary for me to consider the third and fourth issues.[6]There was an agreed bundle of documents running to 41 pages and a witness statement from the claimant. I heard evidence from the claimant, and both parties had the opportunity to make oral submissions.[7]At the start of the hearing the claimant told the Tribunal that she had been advised by ACAS that the deadline for filing her claim was 22 April 2025 and that she had a document confirming that. We adjourned the hearing to give her time to find the document. She was unable to do so.
Findings of fact
[8]The claimant’s employment with the respondent terminated on 12 November 2024. The claimant appealed against the decision to dismiss her. The appeal process concluded on 8 January 2025 when the claimant was informed of the outcome of her appeal by letter.[9]In January 2025 the claimant became a full time carer for her mother who has advanced dementia. She was very busy caring for her mother and trying to find full time care for her. Understandably at that time her priority was her mother. She attended meetings with and about her mother and took steps to be appointed as her Deputy.[10]In late March 2025 the claimant’s mother moved into a care home full time. She still lives in that home. The claimant then spent some time moving her mother’s belongings out of her house and handed the keys to the house back in the first week of April.[11]In January 2025 the claimant contacted ACAS and was told of the 3 month time limit for bringing an Employment Tribunal claim. On 29 January she began early conciliation and the certificate was issued on 12 March 2025.[12]On 8 April 2025 the claimant started a new job working 14 hours a week. Before 8 April she spent some time shadowing in preparation for starting her new job.[13]The claimant says she was told by ACAS that the deadline for filing her claim was 22 April 2025. She did not produce any documentary evidence to support her oral evidence. I find on balance that ACAS did not tell her the 22 April was the deadline, but that the claimant took the date of 22 April from the Record of the last Preliminary Hearing.[14]On 25 April the claimant realised she was out of time to put her claim in and telephoned ACAS who told her to put her claim in as soon as possible and that the Tribunal would decide whether it could proceed. The claimant then submitted her claim 3 days later, on 28 April.[15]This is not the first claim the claimant has made. She told the Tribunal that she has brought a previous claim and that she represented herself in that claim also.
The Law
[16]The time limits for bringing claims of unfair dismissal are set out in section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“the ERA”) which provides as follows: “(1) A complaint may be presented to an employment tribunal against an employer by any person that he was unfairly dismissed by the employer. (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. (2A) Section 207B (extension of time limits to .facilitate conciliation before institution of proceedings) applies for the purposes of subsection (2)(a). (3) Where a dismissal is with notice, an employment tribunal shall consider a complaint under this section if it is presented after the notice is given but before the effective date of termination…”[17]Section 207B of the ERA provides for the extension of time limits to enable early conciliation to take place before proceedings are commenced: “(1) This section applies where this Act provides for it to apply for the purposes of a provision of this Act (“a relevant provision”). (2) In this section –(a) Day A is the day on which the complainant or applicant concerned complies with the requirement in subsection (1) of section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (requirement to contact ACAS before instituting proceedings) in relation to the matter in respect of which the proceedings are brought, and(b) Day B is the day on which the complainant or applicant concerned receives or, if earlier, is treated as receiving (by virtue of regulations made under subsection (11) of that section) the certificate issued under subsection (4) of that section. (3) In working out when a time limit set by a relevant provision expires the period beginning with the day after Day A and ending with Day B is not to be counted. (4) If a time limit set by a relevant provision would (if not extended by this subsection) expire during the period beginning with Day A and ending one month after Day B, the time limit expires instead at the end of that period. (5) Where an employment tribunal has power under this Act to extend a time limit set by a relevant provision, the power is exercisable in relation to the time limit as extended by this section.”[18]Time limits for presenting claims are a jurisdictional issue (Rodgers v Bodfari (Transport) Ltd 1973 325 NIRC) and if a claim is out of time, the Tribunal must not hear it. The parties cannot agree to waive a time limit, so even if a respondent does not seek to argue that a claim is out of time, the Tribunal still has no jurisdiction to hear the claim if it is in fact out of time. The Court of Appeal in Radakovits v Abbey National plc [2010] IRLR 307 confirmed that time limits go to jurisdiction and that jurisdiction cannot be conferred on the Tribunal by agreement or waiver, so that an employer’s decision not to raise a time point will not bind the Tribunal.[19]The principle that a Tribunal cannot hear a claim that is out of time applies even where the respondent admits that the claim has merit. In Bewick v SGA Forecourts Ltd ET Case No.2501693/2014 the respondent admitted that it owed holiday pay to the claimant. The claimant presented her claim nine days’ late however. The Tribunal concluded that it was reasonably practicable for her to have presented her claim in time, and that it therefore did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim.[20]In cases, such as this one, in which a question arises as to whether it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present her claim on time, there are three general principles that fall to be considered – 1. The question of reasonable practicability should be interpreted liberally in favour of the claimant; 2. It is a question of fact as to whether it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present her claim on time; and 3. It is for the claimant to prove that it was not reasonably practicable for her to present her claim on time.[21]In Palmer and another v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1984] ICR 372, the Court of Appeal concluded that ‘reasonably practicable’ does not mean ‘reasonable’ or ‘physically possible’, but rather ‘reasonably feasible’.
Conclusions
[22]The primary time limit for presenting the claimant’s claim expired on 11 February 2025, which is 3 months less one day after the date upon which her employment terminated. The period from the day after Day A (29 January) to Day B (12 March) is 41 days. 41 days after 11 February 2025 is 24 March 2025. The time limit calculated using section 207B(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 would therefore be 24 March 2025.[23]However, as the primary time limit was due to expire during the period of early conciliation, the time limit is extended to one month after the end of early conciliation by virtue of section 207B(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Under this provision the claim should have been presented on or before 12 April 2025.[24]The claimant presented her claim on 28 April 2025, 16 days late.[25]The claimant’s reasons for submitting her claim late were, in summary, that: 1. She suddenly became the full-time carer for her mother who has advanced dementia and requires constant supervision; 2. She took on full responsibility for her mother’s health, welfare and finances, moving into her home immediately to keep her safe, and subsequently clearing the home by herself; 3. She was going through the process to become her mother’s Deputy and working with the police and Financial Ombudsman to recover monies taken from her mother; and 4. She was also dealing with conflict with her siblings and “the severe emotional trauma and exacerbation of my disabilities caused by the bullying I experienced whilst working at “ the respondent.[26]The first question I have to consider is whether it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to put her claim in on time. In reaching my conclusions on this issue I take account of the following: 1. The claimant was aware of the time limit for presenting her claim before the primary time limit expired, as ACAS told her about the time limit in January 2025; 2. The claimant was able to start early conciliation in time despite the fact that she was caring for her mother; 3. Although the claimant is a litigant in person, she has brought Employment Tribunal proceedings before so has some experience of them; 4. Whilst I accept that caring for her mother would have been a very difficult and stressful time for the claimant, to her credit she was able, during that period to find full time residential care for her mother within just two months, and to obtain new employment for herself; 5. The claimant was also able, during that period, to attend meetings about her mother’s care, empty her mother’s house, hand back the keys and begin shadowing to prepare for her new role.[27]Employment Tribunal proceeding time limits are important. The claimant was aware of them and knew how to start her claim, having been through the process previously. In light of all of the above, I find that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have issued her claim by 12 April 2025. By 12 April she was working again and no longer caring for her mother. Her claim form is not a long or detailed one. It would not have taken a lot of time to complete.[28]The claimant has not discharged the burden of proving that it was not reasonably practicable for her to submit her claim in time.[29]I also find that the claimant did not present the claim within such further period as was reasonable. The claimant told the Tribunal that she believed the deadline was 22 April, and that she realised she had missed the deadline on 25 April, when she contacted ACAS about it. She then waited a further 3 days before issuing her claim and has provided no valid reason for that further delay.[30]For the above reasons the claim is out of time, and the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear it. Approved by: