EMPLOYMENT LAW

It was not disputed that it was not “reasonably practicable” for the claimant to have presented her claim within the initial three-month period and so the issue was whether or not the delay by the claimant from the end of that three-month period until the date when the claim was presented was “reasonable” (The Employment Rights Act 1996, s 111(2)).

It was held that although the two tests are different, they both embrace the concept of reasonableness, although the reasonably practicable test has the additional requirement of practicability.

Matters of crucial importance in determining the reasonableness aspect—rather than the “practicable” aspect—of the test of reasonably practicable are likely to be of substantial importance in ascertaining if a claimant has, after the end of the three-month period, launched proceedings “within such period as the tribunal considers reasonable”.

Thus, an employment tribunal should investigate what the employee knew and what knowledge the employee should have had if he or she had acted reasonably in all the circumstances while ignoring the practicability aspect of that definition.