Beasley v National Grid

Under section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, a complaint presented slightly late remains out of time. The tribunal has jurisdiction only if timely presentation was not reasonably practicable and any further period is reasonable. Reasonable practicability is principally a question of fact. An appeal succeeds only in an exceptional case. A tribunal need give sufficient, rather than elaborate, reasons. Leaving electronic filing until the last moment means that temporary technical problems may remain the claimant’s risk.

Mr Beasley’s unfair-dismissal complaint was received by the Employment Tribunal 88 seconds after the applicable three-month deadline. He had received conflicting advice, discovered the correct deadline on the Friday evening, and attempted to submit an online claim on the final day, initially using an incorrect email address.

The Employment Tribunal, sitting as a pre-hearing review, held that the complaint was out of time and that it had no jurisdiction. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, Silber J sitting alone, upheld that decision. The Court of Appeal considered whether the tribunal had properly addressed reasonable practicability and whether its reasons were legally adequate.

Application for permission to appeal refused. Tuckey LJ gave the judgment, with Mummery LJ and Sir Paul Kennedy agreeing.

1. Section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 imposes a three-month time limit for presenting an unfair-dismissal complaint. If timely presentation was reasonably practicable, a complaint presented after that period is out of time and the tribunal has no jurisdiction. Slight lateness does not create an intermediate category. The reasons for, and length of, the delay matter only within the statutory scheme.
2. Whether presentation was reasonably practicable is pre-eminently a question of fact for the tribunal. An appeal will seldom lie and requires an overwhelming case that no reasonable tribunal, properly applying the evidence and law, could have reached the decision.
3. The tribunal had addressed the relevant matters: Mr Beasley’s knowledge of the deadline, the steps he took, and the impediments relied upon. It was entitled to treat the earlier confusion and advice as insufficient to explain the whole delay, and to focus on the period after the correct advice had been received. The weight given to those matters was for the tribunal.
4. The tribunal’s reasons were sufficient. Although they could have been fuller, they dealt with the material submissions and enabled Mr Beasley to understand why he had lost. A jurisdiction decision may properly contain shorter reasons than a full merits decision.
5. The Court endorsed Fishley v Working Mens College 28 October 2004: where presentation is left until the last moment, a temporary technical impediment is a risk that must be taken. The wrong email address and late electronic transmission did not make timely presentation impracticable.
6. The court recognised the harshness of the result and the absence of prejudice caused by an 88-second delay, but held that the statutory wording provided no equitable basis for overlooking the deadline. The formal order was: Application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): refused permission to appeal, holding that the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Silber J upheld the Employment Tribunal’s conclusion that the complaint was out of time and that its decision was open to it on the facts.
• Employment Tribunal: Mrs Hill, sitting alone at a pre-hearing review, held that the complaint had been presented out of time and dismissed it for want of jurisdiction.