Ms S Levy v Otcco Ltd T/a Forge Accountancy (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation): 6031803/2025
JUDGMENT
[1]It is the judgment of the Tribunal that: 1. The claims for notice pay, holiday pay and unpaid wages were not presented within the applicable time limit. It was reasonably practicable to do so. The claims are therefore dismissed. Employment Judge R Havard Dated: 21 November 2025 ORDER SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 05 December 2025 Katie Dickson FOR THE SECRETARY TO EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Case Number: 6031803/2025 2 of 2 The reasons for this decision were given orally at the hearing. Written reasons will not be provided unless they are asked for by a written request presented by any party within 14 days of this written judgment being sent to the parties.[2]Case Number: 6031803/2025 1 of 3 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Ms S Levy Respondent: Otcco Limited t/a Forge Accountancy (In creditors’ voluntary liquidation) Heard at: Cardiff (via CVP) On: 21 November 2025 Before:REASONS
[1]The Claimant brought claims for notice pay, holiday pay, unpaid overtime and costs.[2]The Claimant was employed by the Respondent, now in creditors voluntary liquidation, from 5 August 2024 to 14 March 2025 when she resigned.[3]On 13 March 2025, the Respondent’s solicitors sent a letter to the Claimant stating that for the reasons set out in that letter and which I do not have to repeat here, she would not be paid any amounts that may be owing to her.[4]On 18 March 2025, the Claimant sent a letter to a firm of solicitors, Berry Smith LLP, asking for advice regarding what had been said by the Respondent’s solicitors. In her evidence today, the Claimant confirmed that she had received that advice on 1 April 2025. I have not been told the nature of that advice but the Claimant confirmed that it did not include advice relating to time limits within which claims for the type of amounts being pursued by the Claimant should be instigated. Case Number: 6031803/2025 2 of 3[5]There was then a delay from 1 April 2025 to 9 June 2025 at which time the Claimant notified ACAS. The Claimant, who impressed me as someone who was straightforward and honest in her explanations to me, stated that she could not provide an explanation for that delay, save that, “I did not know whether I was going with ACAS and was looking on-line for other advice”.[6]Nevertheless, the referral to ACAS was made within the primary limitation period.[7]ACAS issued its certificate on 21 July 2025. The Claimant therefore had until 21 August 2025 to issue proceedings.[8]It was accepted by the Claimant and I find that the Claimant was told by ACAS that she had one month from 21 July 2025 in which to lodge her claim at the Tribunal. The Claimant confirmed that she relied on what ACAS had said to her.[9]The Claimant also stated that it was not until 28 August 2025 that she gave any thought to her claim. She said that, for some reason unknown to her, she thought she had until 31 August 2025 in which to issue her claim but she realised on 28 August 2025 that she was mistaken and that she was already out of time. The Claimant then contacted ACAS who suggested that she should lodge her claim and explain the reason for her delay.[10]The Claimant indicated that this was “not a great period in my life” and that she was not in the right frame of mind. However, the Claimant had not produced any evidence, to include medical evidence, to suggest that she was unable to lodge her claim.[11]The Claimant proceeded to lodge her claim on 28 August 2025.The Law
[12]Claims of the type being pursued by the Claimant must be presented within three months of the effective date of termination of employment pursuant to section 111(1)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, extended in a variety of ways by the requirement to obtain an Early Conciliation Certificate from ACAS before filing a claim.[13]Tribunals have a discretion to extend the time limit if the Claimant can show that it was not reasonably practicable to put the claim in on time and that the claim has been submitted within a reasonable time of it becoming practicable to present the complaint.[14]What is reasonably practicable is a question of fact and a matter for the Tribunal to decide but the burden of showing that it was not reasonably practicable falls on the Claimant. Analysis and conclusions[15]I have now applied the law to my factual findings and I regret that, based on the account provided by the Claimant, I am unable to conclude that it was not reasonably practicable for her to present her claim within the necessary time limit. Case Number: 6031803/2025 3 of 3[16]The Claimant had been told by ACAS, correctly, that she had one month from the date of ACAS issuing its certificate, that being 21 July 2025, in which to issue proceedings. The Claimant accepted that she should have lodged her Claim Form on or before 21 August 2025.[17]Whilst this may have been a difficult time for the Claimant, this did not prevent her from issuing proceedings on 28 August 2025. Therefore, if she was able to issue proceedings on 28 August 2025, I find that there were no practical hurdles faced by the Claimant which prevented her from issuing her claim and that it was reasonably practicable for her to have done so on or before 21 August 2025.[18]For these reasons, I find that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider the Claimant’s claims as they are out of time.