Mr C Spain v The Burlington Hotel Ltd and Others: 6021218/2025
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 6021218/2025
Between
Mr C SpainClaimantThe Burlington Hotel Limited plus 3 othersRespondentDate 3 March 2026
REASONS
[1]The claim form was presented on the 7 June 2025 over three years out of time. It was reasonably practicable for the claim to be presented within the primary time limit and it was not presented within a reasonable period thereafter. The claim is dismissed.[2]Section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996 provides:(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.[3]In Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd v Britton EA-2020-000972-OO: ‘The employment judge … reminded himself that the onus of proving that the presentation of the claim in time was not reasonably practicable rests with the claimant.’ ‘A person who is considering bringing a claim for unfair dismissal is expected to apprise themselves of the time limits that apply; it is their responsibility to do so.’ ‘Notwithstanding his dyslexia and mental health problems the claimant had been able to do the following things in the relevant period: [There was then a list of ten matters which the claimant had dealt with.] ‘Even though during this period he was depressed and had dyslexia, this did not mean that he was incapacitated and it did not mean that it was not reasonably practicable for him to find out the time limits.’[4]This is a claim of constructive unfair dismissal. It was originally accepted against two corporate respondents. The claim against Vine Hotels Limited was dismissed upon withdrawal on the 11 November 2025.[5]The claim against the third to fifth respondents was rejected on the 10 June 2025 as there was no Acas early conciliation certificate provided. It is not clear how the claim seems to have been able proceeded against those respondents. There does not appear to be a judicial decision to reinstate those named respondents. This is a claim of constructive unfair dismissal, for which individual employees/ directors of the respondent cannot be liable.[6]Some documents in the claimant’s bundle were redacted. There had been no application from the claimant to redact certain information.[7]Many of the facts are undisputed.[8]The claimant’s employment commenced on the 1 April 2014 and he was employed as a Food and Beverages Manager.[9]On the 10 August 2021 the respondent issued the claimant with a written warning due to performance related issues.[10]The claimant was then absent from work due to ill-health and on 8 September 2021 he produced a Med3 statement of fitness for work. He was certified as unfit for work due to ‘depressive disorder’ to the 22 September 2021.[11]On the 9 September 2021 the claimant raised a grievance that the envelope containing his Med3 note had been opened by a member of staff who was not authorised to do so and that member of staff discussed the contents of it with other staff.[12]A grievance hearing was held on the 21 September 2021 and was heard by Mr Boizot (page 48). The outcome was dated 22 September 2021 and was that the person who opened the envelope was authorised to do so and the contents of the envelope were not discussed (page 47).[13]The claimant appealed against the grievance outcome on the 22 September 2021 (page 46).[14]The grievance appeal meeting was held on the 5 October 2021 and was heard by Mr Sangiuseppe (page 49). The claimant was accompanied by his Trade Union representative. The outcome was dated the same date and the appeal upheld the original decision.[15]The claimant resigned on the 21 March 2022 (page 39). He referred to: ‘…the stress of the work is having a negative impact on me, and I feel as though I am not wanted at the company anymore, I have tried to talk about my position and explain. I feel I am being treated unfairly and disregarded. I now feel compelled to step back and reevaluate my longterm professional objective.’[16]The claimant contacted Acas on the 26 May 2025 and a certificate was issued no the 6 June 2025. The claim was presented on the 7 June 2025.[17]The claimant’s ‘ET1 statement of case’ stated that his claim was for constructive unfair dismissal and beaches of the ‘UK General Data Protection Regulations (UK GDPR) and Data Protection Act 2018’.[18]In that document, the claimant specifically referred to the issue of a disciplinary letter in August 2021, being signed off work by his GP and submitted a ‘GP fit note’ addressed to the acting General Manager and the note being unlawfully opened. He stated that his ability to return to work was ‘compromised by this breach of trust, the Respondents’ refusal to acknowledge or correct these actions, and a pattern of obstruction in subject access request responses’ The alleged breach therefore took place in September 2021.[19]There was no claim pleaded under the Equality Act 2010 (EQA) and no such claim could properly be inferred from the claim form and statement of case.[20]The claimant had made a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) about inappropriately disclosed data by the respondent. The ICO decided on the 7 December 2021 that the respondent had complied with its data protection obligations (page 56).[21]Despite the request from the respondent for a medical report being referred to in the claimant’s witness statement, it was not pleaded as a breach of contract (or as a final straw). In any event, there was no explanation as to why the claimant waited until the 21 March 2022 to resign. If the request of the 18 February 2022 for a medical report was a final straw, the claimant waiting for over a month before he resigned.[22]In his witness statement, the claimant referred to a SAR disclosures in 2025 which he said confirmed Mr Sangiuseppe was provided with the Stage 1 grievance material before the outcome was issued (witness statement paragraph 5). The SAR was made on the 9 May 2025 and the outcome was dated 7 June 2025 (page 62).[23]Acas early conciliation had taken place between the 26 May 2025 and 2 June 2025.[24]The claimant had therefore contacted Acas after he made his application but before he had received the outcome.[25]The claimant had previously made a SAR on the 30 November 2023, to which the respondent responded on the 12 December 2023 (page 59). It is not clear what the outcome of this SAR was, but there is no record of a complaint to the ICO.[26]After an assessment on the 26 November 2025 a report was produced dated 19 December 2025 which diagnosed the claimant with ADHD (page 32). The report was incomplete due to redactions.[27]Although it is accepted the claimant would have had symptoms of ADHD prior to the formal diagnosis, there was no evidence that he was experiencing those symptoms in 2021 or 2022. If he was, there was no medical evidence. As the respondent pointed out, there was no medical evidence provided by the claimant between 2022 and 2025 and indeed, he seemed to suggest he had not consulted his GP during that period. There was no explanation as to how the claimant was able to function in 2025 and to present his claim, but not at an earlier point in time.[28]In his witness statement, the claimant stated that the GP records and fit notes show that he was clinically assessed as suffering from depressive disorder/depression from September 2021 onwards (paragraph 8).[29]That evidence is accepted, however the claimant’s GP is not independent and they only owe any duty to the claimant, and not to the Tribunal. This is not expert evidence.[30]The facts are therefore, the claimant’s grievance was completed by 5 October 2021. He was asked for medical information on the 18 February 2022. He resigned on the 21 March 2022. He made a SAR on 30 November 2023 and again on the 9 May 2025. He contacted Acas on the 26 May 2025 and the certificate was issued on the 2 June 2025. He presented the ET1 on the 7 June 2025. He confirmed at the hearing that he was aware of the time limits.[31]At the time the Tribunal file was initially considered on the 8 September 2025 there were approximately 300-pages of documents on the file. Which were applications and objections made during a three month period. This is excessive. It included eight additional Acas certificates for named respondents. A formal disclosure application. A request for a default Judgment against the original second respondent. An allegation that several named individual respondents had not been properly served. Attempts by the claimant to ‘personally serve’ five named purported respondents. A ‘formal rebuttal’ to the respondent’s response (18-pages). A schedule of loss (3-pages). An application for a preparation time order. Objections to the respondent’s proposed bundle. A second application for a ‘default’ judgment (26 August 2025). An objection to the respondent’s application for a preliminary hearing (on time limit issues). And further objections.[32]What that does demonstrate is that the claimant was able to engaged with the process during that period of time. In particular, he was able to engage in matters which were of concern to him or were his priorities. This was against the background of his formal diagnosis of ADHD and the accepted fact that if he were not formally diagnosed until late-November 2025, then he must have been experiencing symptoms prior to that time.[33]What is not explained is why, even of the claimant was experiencing symptoms of ADHD in 2022 and beyond (notwithstanding there is no medical evidence of this, only of a GP’s diagnosis of depression), why the claimant was unable to present his case during the original time limit.[34]The diagnosis of depression is accepted. It is however a fact that many, many self-represented claimants are depressed. Whether that is a formal diagnosis of not. Like the claimant, many claimants have lost their job and therefore their livelihood. They have no income and may have to apply for and rely upon benefits. In those circumstances, they have to look for another job and many of them accept ‘a’ job, rather than anything which is more ideal. They have other matters to deal with. Children who are ill, or who are taking exams. Relatives’ illnesses, despite their own ill health. Elderly parents. Family members who are not in the UK and who need help and assistance. They still manage to comply with the time limit.[35]The claimant is clearly articulate and intelligent. He is also computer literate. He had the support of his partner (a witness statement was produced dated 7 August 2025 and sent to the Tribunal on the 3 September 2025).[36]There is no satisfactory explanation as to why the claimant was unable to present his claim within the primary time limit or within any reasonable period thereafter.[37]The respondent took issue with the time limit from the outset and therefore the claimant was on notice of the time limit issue since the 7 July 2025, if not before then.[38]It is not accepted the Tribunal process is unnecessarily complicated or difficult. All that is required is at most, a telephone call to Acas. Then to complete and submit an on-line form, which has required information. The claimant’s name, address, the name and address of the respondent, the details of Acas certificate and the type and details of the claim (in this case constructive unfair dismissal). The claim form has a total of 14 boxes (with sub boxes, e.g. 1.1 to 1.11) to complete, of which eight are marked: ‘You must compete all questions marked with an ‘*’.’[39]Furthermore, the claimant had attempted to comply with complex Acas early conciliation requirements. He had included Vine Hotels Limited as a second respondent who did not become involved until September 2024 when it was appointed as a management company to oversee the operations of the respondent.[40]The time limits are deliberately short in the Employment Tribunal. This is so that claims are presented promptly and are considered whilst matters are still fresh in the parties’ minds. If there is, as is currently the case, delay due to an oversubscribed system, the fact a claim has been presented promptly means that evidence can be preserved if the hearing is not going to take place for some time. Had the claim been presented within the time limit, it would have concluded by now. Personnel move on and can be difficult to trace. Employment Tribunal time limits are not aspirational, they are deadlines. A lack of legal knowledge does not excuse, particularly when a simple internet search will reveal the time limits within approximately three clicks. There are numerous, well-known sources of information, such as Acas, CAB, the GOV.UK website etc. In any event, the claimant confirmed he was aware of the time limit.[41]It was therefore reasonably practicable for the claimant’s claim to have been presented in time and it was not then presented within such further period of time the Tribunal considers reasonable. There was delay in the claimant contacting Acas and then further and in the circumstances of the time limit, significant delay before the claim was presented.[42]It is not accepted there is no prejudice caused to the respondent by such a long delay. The event complained of took place 4 years 5 months ago. The claimant submitted that if the time limit is not extended, he is shut out completely from the Tribunal process. That is correct, however the responsibility of presenting his claim within the time limit rested with him.[43]As the claimant was not presented within the primary time limit, the Tribunal therefore finds that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to be presented within the primary time limit. It was not presented within a reasonable period thereafter and it is therefore dismissed. Approved by: