Humphreys v Persimmon Homes (Wales) Ltd

An employee cannot bring an unfair dismissal claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996 without the applicable minimum qualifying period. Where the employee has less than one year’s service, the claim is legally unavailable. An appeal to the Court of Appeal must raise a question of law and have a real prospect of success. The Employment Appeal Tribunal may refuse an extension of time where the appeal is substantially out of time, no exceptional reason is shown, and the proposed appeal is hopeless.

The claimant’s employment ended after approximately ten months. The Employment Tribunal struck out his unfair dismissal claim on the basis that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required one year’s qualifying service.

His notice of appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal was lodged 88 days late. The registrar refused an extension under paragraph 3(2) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993. Lindsay J dismissed the appeal, finding no exceptional circumstances and no practical prospect of success.

The claimant applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal, raising alleged tribunal bias, a health and safety exception, procedural disadvantage, and the circumstances of his dismissal. The central issue was whether there was a real prospect of a successful appeal.

1. Permission refused. The application was dealt with on the papers because the claimant did not attend and was unrepresented.
2. Appeals to the Court of Appeal from the Employment Appeal Tribunal are confined to questions of law. Permission requires a real prospect of success.
3. The applicable qualifying period under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was one year. The claimant had completed less than one year’s service and therefore could not bring the unfair dismissal claim. The Employment Tribunal was entitled to strike it out.
4. The Employment Appeal Tribunal was entitled to refuse an extension of time. The notice of appeal was 88 days late, no exceptional cause had been shown under paragraph 3(2) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993, and the proposed appeal was hopeless because the claimant challenged the statutory qualifying requirement.
5. The additional complaints concerning bias, health and safety, sickness absence, statutory sick pay, warnings, and the asserted completion of the qualifying period disclosed no valid legal point. The application for permission to appeal was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal refused on 26 April 2001.
2. Employment Appeal Tribunal: Lindsay J dismissed the claimant’s appeal against the registrar’s refusal to extend time.
3. Employment Tribunal: The claimant’s unfair dismissal claim was struck out on 19 May 2000 because he had less than one year’s service.