Beasley v National Grid

The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal and upheld the tribunal's decision that the unfair dismissal claim was out of time under section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal had found the claim was presented 88 seconds after expiry of the three-month period and that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the claim in time. The court held that the question of what is "reasonably practicable" is primarily a matter of fact for the tribunal, that the tribunal had addressed the material considerations (the claimant's knowledge, steps taken and impediments encountered) and that its reasons were adequate. The court emphasised the strict statutory time bar in section 111(2) and declined to remit the matter.

Background and parties: The appellant, Mr Beasley, was dismissed by his employer, National Grid, with an effective date of termination of 7 February 2006. He presented an unfair dismissal complaint to the Employment Tribunal after the three-month deadline expired by 88 seconds. The respondent relied on the time bar and sought a pre-hearing review of jurisdiction.

Procedural posture: The tribunal chairman dismissed the complaint as out of time. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (heard by Silber J) considered an appeal and concluded the tribunal had addressed the statutory test. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was initially refused on the papers by Pill LJ; on renewed application Wall LJ adjourned and the Court of Appeal heard the matter.

Nature of the claim and relief sought: The claim was an unfair dismissal complaint. The appellant sought a determination that the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the complaint or, alternatively, that the tribunal should remit the matter because it failed to take into account material factors or give adequate reasons.

Issues framed:

• Whether the complaint was presented within the three-month period prescribed by section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
• If not, whether it was "not reasonably practicable" for the claimant to present the complaint within that period so as to vest the tribunal with jurisdiction.
• Whether the tribunal properly considered and explained the material matters bearing on reasonable practicability, or whether its reasons were defective such as to require reconsideration.

Court's reasoning and conclusion: The court analysed the tribunal's decision and the submissions made on behalf of the claimant, including evidence about legal advice, communications with the Employment Tribunal helpline and technical difficulties when submitting the online ET1 (notably an incorrect email/address entry and an electronic rejection). The court concluded the tribunal had considered the relevant factors (the claimant's knowledge, steps taken and impediments) and that its conclusion — that it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time — was a conclusion open on the evidence. The court emphasised that the statutory test in section 111(2) is strict, that appellate interference is rare on such factual questions (citing Crofton v Yeboah and other authorities), and that the tribunal's reasons were sufficient to show why the claimant lost. Permission to appeal was refused.

Appeal refused. The tribunal had jurisdictional grounds to dismiss the claim as out of time because section 111(2) imposes a strict three-month limit unless it was not reasonably practicable to present the complaint. The tribunal had considered the material factors (the claimant's knowledge, steps taken and impediments), its factual conclusion was open to it, and its reasons were adequate. No error of law requiring interference was shown.

Appeal from a decision of the Employment Tribunal (pre-hearing review by a tribunal chairman) in Bow County Court (His Honour Judge Hornby). The Employment Tribunal dismissed the claim as out of time; the Employment Appeal Tribunal (Silber J) refused to invalidate that decision. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused on the papers by Pill LJ and then renewed by Wall LJ for hearing. Final determination by the Court of Appeal: [2008] EWCA Civ 742.