D Adeaga v The Secretary of State for Justice: 6017968/2024
REASONS
[1]The parties in this case are the claimant, Mr Debo Adeaga, and the respondent, the Secretary of State for Justice. The claimant brings a claim of unfair dismissal against the respondent.[2]The matter was heard before me on 4 November 2025 as a preliminary hearing in public to determine whether it was reasonably practicable to present the claim within the time limit, and if not, to determine if it was presented within a reasonable period thereafter.[3]At the outset of the hearing, the Respondent’s name was amended to The Secretary of State for Justice with the consent of both parties.[4]I heard evidence from the claimant and the claimant’s wife, Mrs Adeaga. There was a 54-page bundle, which included the pleadings, a witness statement on behalf of the claimant, and some medical evidence on behalf of the claimant. I was provided with a skeleton argument on behalf of the respondent. Following a discussion with the parties on the law I heard submissions from both parties prior to reaching my decision. The Issue[5]The preliminary issue for determination is whether the unfair dismissal claim was made within the time limits in section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.[6]In particular, I must decide:a. Whether the claim was made to the Tribunal within three months (plus early conciliation extension) of the effective date of termination.b. If not, whether it was reasonably practicable for the claim to be made to the Tribunal within the time limit.c. Whether, if it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to be made to the Tribunal within the time limit, the claim was made within a reasonable period.Relevant facts
[7]The claimant was employed as a prison officer at HMP Belmarsh. He started his employment on 18 May 2020. Around June or July 2023 there was an incident at work. He went through a disciplinary process and was informed he would be dismissed for gross misconduct. He appealed that decision, but his appeal was unsuccessful.[8]The claimant’s employment ended on 25 June 2024. This was the date when he was notified that his appeal had not succeeded and his dismissal would take effect. The letter which he was sent by the respondent included a sentence to the effect that he may be able to bring a tribunal claim.[9]The time limit for bringing the claim ran from 25 June 2024. Three months, less one day, from 25 June 2024 was 24 September 2024. However, the claimant contacted ACAS about his claim and began early conciliation on 12 August 2024. This stopped the clock on when he had to bring his claim. Early conciliation finished with the issue of the ACAS certificate on 10 September 2024. Therefore, the clock was stopped for 29 days during the period that he was engaging with ACAs in relation to early conciliation. The claimant therefore needed to bring his claim 29 days after 24 September.[10]In order to bring his claim within the time limit, the claimant needed to lodge his claim with the Tribunal by 23 October 2024. The claimant thinks the date he had to bring his claim was 25 October 2024, but in light of the facts set out above, I find that the date was actually 23 October 2024. It doesn’t matter much in this case, because the claimant accepts that he brought his claim outside of the time limit in any event. The claimant’s claim form was received by the Tribunal on 8 November 2024. It was therefore 16 days after the limitation period for bringing the claim ended.[11]The claimant’s own evidence is that he understood that there was a time limit for bringing his claim, and that he realised that around the time ACAS were involved. The claimant approached ACAS within the time limit.[12]The claimant had a misunderstanding with his trade union about whether the union solicitor would be able to represent him, and that confused the claimant about the various time limits. However, the claimant accepts that misunderstanding was resolved by the time he contacted ACAS.[13]As to the claimant’s health, the claimant was struggling with a physical injury at the time and that made him very tired. He was in pain and it was hard for him to move around because he was using crutches. I have considered the medical evidence provided in relation to this. The various letters from the NHS record the following:a. A referral from his GP to the Orthopaedic triage service on 21 August 2024 asking him to arrange an appointment.b. A letter of 3 October 2024 informing him an appointment had been made for 11 December 2024.c. A letter dated 28 November 2024 providing an appointment in the trauma and orthopaedics clinic of Queen Mary’s Hospital on 20 March 2025.d. A letter of 20 August 2025 providing an appointment at Guy’s Trauma and Orthopaedic Spine clinic on 29 October 2025.e. A letter of 12 September 2025, giving the claimant two appointments at the Nuclear Medicine Clinic at Guy’s Hospital – both for 17 October 2025.[14]The medical evidence provided therefore does not show the claimant was required to attend any medical appointments between the date of his dismissal and the date the claim form was lodged.[15]As to the claimant’s mental health, I accept the claimant’s evidence that he decided not to seek assistance from the GP because(i) he was able to obtain support from his wife who is a trained counsellor,(ii) because of his faith in God which meant he relied on higher divine intervention to help him and(iii) because his background and upbringing meant seeking medical help for his mental health came with certain unfavourable connotations.[16]I find that following his dismissal the claimant slept poorly, and that matters kept running over in his mind. I also accept the evidence of Mrs Adeaga that the claimant was affected by the situation with an impact on his sleep and levels of anxiety, and that he became emotionally withdrawn and was, to use her words “at the bottom”.[17]The claimant was also dealing with an issue about an overpayment of his salary and was responding to communications from Shared Services Connected Limited (who I understood to be responsible for administering the claimant’s salary) about that overpayment between September 2024 and when he filed the claim. This issue was of great importance to the claimant given that he was the main breadwinner in the family, and because of losing his job he had no income.[18]To deal with this matter, he had to liaise with his former employer and understand whether he had any outstanding untaken annual leave that might resolve the debt. I accept that this debt added to the claimant’s stress levels. However, the claimant was mentally able to deal with this issue during the relevant time.[19]The claimant ultimately reached a point where, following the support of a colleague, he felt able to lodge his claim. The claimant’s own evidence is that this support was an ongoing process, that began even before he left his employment and continues to this day. The claimant felt supported and that he was not alone. There would be phone calls and messages between the claimant and this colleague.The Law
[20]I discussed the law with the parties prior to hearing their submissions.[21]S.111 of the Employment Rights Act provides, where relevant, 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).[22]Section 207B provides, where relevant, as follows:(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.[23]Time limits are fundamental to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. If a claim is presented outside of the time limit, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear it, unless the Tribunal grants an extension of time. The burden is on the claimant to prove that the presentation of the claim in time was not reasonably practicable.[24]The key legal principles relevant to the instant case are as follows:a. What is reasonably practicable is a question of fact, and thus a matter for the tribunal to decide (Wall’s Meat Co Ltd v Khan 1979 ICR 52, CA)b. The test the Tribunal needs to apply is not to simply look at what was possible, but to ask whether it was reasonable to expect that which was possible to have been done (Asda Stores v Kauser EAT 0165/07).c. Reasonably practicable carries the same sense as the words ‘reasonably feasible’. Factors which can make something not reasonably feasible include illness or mental illness (University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust v Williams [2012] EAT 0291/12)d. Stress, as opposed to illness or incapacity is unlikely to be sufficient reason for not presenting a claim in time (Asda Stores v Kauser EAT 0165/07).e. A person who is considering bringing a claim is expected to appraise themselves of the time limits that apply; it is their responsibility to do so (Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd v Britton 2022 IRLR 906, EAT).f. Where a claimant has been able to do other things during the period between their dismissal and the expiry of the time limit, the tribunal should consider why their conditions prevented the claimant from finding out about the time limit and/or presenting the claim (Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd v Britton 2022 IRLR 906, EAT).g. If a Trade Union official/adviser negligently or incorrectly advises an employee about time limits, that fault must be attributed to the employee themselves (Alliance and Leicester plc v Kidd EAT 0078/07; London Borough of Islington v Brown EAT 0155/08).[25]If a tribunal finds that it was not reasonably practicable to bring a claim in time it must consider, under the second limb of S.111(2)(b), whether the case was presented within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable.[26]The test of what is reasonable requires an objective consideration of the factors causing the delay and what period should reasonably be allowed in the circumstances for proceedings to be instituted, having regard to the strong public interest in claims being brought promptly and within a primary limitation period of three months (Cullinane v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services Ltd and anor EAT 0537/10). Analysis and conclusion[27]I have considered each of the points raised by the claimant.[28]The claimant accepts that the misunderstanding with his trade union was resolved by the time he went to ACAS. He approached ACAS well within the three-month limit. This therefore cannot amount to a reason why he did not bring his claim in time after the ACAS early conciliation process finished.[29]The claimant accepts that he knew of the time limits by the time he approached ACAS. Therefore, he understood, at the latest by the time the ACAS process was complete that there was a time limit he needed to comply with. This is not a case where the claimant was ignorant of when he needed to bring the claim.[30]Submitting a claim is something that can all be done online. Whilst I have found that the claimant was physically unwell at the time, that his movement was restricted and that he was in pain and tired, his physical injury was not so debilitating that he could not use his email or make phone calls.[31]I have found that the claimant was under a good deal of stress at the time. However, the evidence the claimant relies on does not establish that the claimant’s mental health amounted to a mental incapacity. Much of what the claimant relies on is common to any claimant bringing proceedings of this type, and whilst I don’t doubt the impact it must have had on the claimant and I am sure that the process of reliving matters for the purpose of completing his ET1 was a painful one, the evidence simply doesn’t establish that the impact on the claimant’s mental health was so debilitating that it was not reasonably feasible for him to bring his claim in time.[32]This is because, during the same period, he was able to engage with ACAS, liaise with his colleague about what was happening to him, deal with Shared Services Connected Limited and speak to his employer about the issue of the debt recovery. All of those things demonstrate that the claimant was able function reasonably effectively at the time, but importantly also show that, notwithstanding how difficult he was finding things, the claimant was also able to take steps in relation to his claim specifically (i.e. approaching ACAS and discussing it with his colleague).[33]Whilst putting matters down on paper was a challenging step for the claimant to take, it was a step that he knew had to be taken within a certain time, and the evidence before me cannot establish that his mental health was so debilitated that he could not take it. It was reasonably feasible for him to present the claim in time.[34]I accept that the effect of it is that the claimant’s claim is dismissed and he will not get the opportunity to pursue it further. I acknowledge that this will leave the claimant with a sense of injustice. But the law is clear, and it is my job to apply it. For the reasons I have given I cannot find it was not reasonably practicable for this claim to have been presented in time. Accordingly, I have no further discretion to exercise. The claim must be dismissed. Approved by:The Law
[1]The proper name of the Respondent is the Secretary of State for Justice. The Respondent’s name is amended accordingly.[2]The claim of unfair dismissal was not presented within the applicable time limit. It was reasonably practicable to do so. The claim of unfair dismissal is therefore dismissed. Approved by: