header-logo header-logo

EAT upholds harsh time limit decision

16 August 2007
Issue: 7286 / Categories: Legal News , Tribunals , Employment
printer mail-detail

News

An employment tribunal decision not to accept an unfair dismissal claim which was presented 88 seconds late has been upheld by the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

The claimant had tried to submit his claim electronically at about 11.45pm: his claim became out of time at midnight. However, he used the wrong web address, typing “qsi” instead of “gsi”. He then sent a test message about 11.57pm, and sent his actual claim form in 1 minute 28 seconds after midnight.

In Besley v National Grid, Mr Justice Silber said although he could understand the claimant feeling aggrieved since the delay was so small, it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented on time so the tribunal’s decision that the claim was out of time was correct.
Bird & Bird employment lawyer Jeremy Nixon says: “Although the result of this case is extremely hard on the claimant, it perhaps not surprising given the wording of the statute and the public policy considerations which require time limits, particularly those concerned with when claims are commenced, to be rigidly adhered to. Human nature is such that people tend to leave things to the last minute. This case is a stark illustration of the risks this approach entails.”

Issue: 7286 / Categories: Legal News , Tribunals , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clyde & Co—Sian Langer & Gemma Parker

Clyde & Co—Sian Langer & Gemma Parker

Firm strengthens catastrophic injury capability with partner promotions

DWF—Dean Gormley

DWF—Dean Gormley

Finance and restructuring team offering expands in Manchester with partner hire

Taylor Rose—Vicki Maflin

Taylor Rose—Vicki Maflin

Firm announces appointment of head of remortgage

NEWS
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
The long-awaited Getty Images v Stability AI judgment arrived at the end of last year—but not with the seismic impact many expected. In this week's issue of NLJ, experts from Arnold & Porter dissect a ruling that is ‘historic’ yet tightly confined
The UK Supreme Court may be deciding fewer cases, but its impact in 2025 was anything but muted. In this week's NLJ, Professor Emeritus Brice Dickson of Queen’s University Belfast reviews a year marked by historically low output, a striking rise in jointly authored judgments, and a continued decline in dissent. High-profile rulings on biological sex under the Equality Act, public access to Dartmoor, and fairness in sexual offence trials ensured the court’s voice carried far beyond the Strand
back-to-top-scroll