T Mobile (UK) Ltd v Singleton

For the three-month limitation period in an unfair dismissal claim, time runs from the effective date of termination. Where an employee has received skilled legal advice about bringing proceedings and relies on negligent advice, the Dedman principle applies even if the advice was a brief, free telephone consultation and the adviser was not instructed to conduct the proceedings. The question under section 111(2)(b) is whether it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, not whether the employee had a legitimate excuse. An employer has no general duty to investigate and correct an employee’s mistaken calculation of the limitation period. The relevant obligation is not to materially mislead or misrepresent the position.

The respondent was summarily dismissed on 23 November 2009. He obtained brief telephone advice from solicitors and was advised to await the outcome of his internal appeal before presenting proceedings. He believed that the limitation period expired on 25 February 2010, although the claim should have been presented by 22 February 2010. The Employment Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction under section 111(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, finding that presentation in time had not been reasonably practicable and that the claim was presented within a reasonable further period.

The employer appealed, challenging the treatment of the legal advice, the Tribunal’s liberal approach, and its conclusion that the employer should have corrected the respondent’s misunderstanding. The central issues were whether the solicitor’s advice engaged the Dedman principle and whether the employer’s inaction affected reasonable practicability.

1. Appeal allowed. The Employment Tribunal had applied the wrong test and its decision was set aside. There were no further facts to find, so the EAT substituted its own judgment. The claim was dismissed.
2. Under section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, time ran from the effective date of termination, which was 23 November 2009. The claim therefore had to be presented by 22 February 2010. It was presented one day late.
3. The respondent knew of the three-month time limit but had miscalculated its expiry. The issue was whether it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, not whether the respondent had a legitimate excuse. An erroneous assumption about the date of expiry did not itself establish that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim.
4. The brief and free nature of the telephone consultation did not distinguish the case from Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd [1974] ICR 53. The respondent had obtained advice from skilled professional advisers about his dismissal and the applicable time limit, and relied on negligent advice. The principle was of general application. The EAT preferred the approach of Burton J in Ashcroft v Haberdasher’s Aske’s Boys School UKEAT/0151/07/CEA to the obiter suggestion in The Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Theobald UKEAT/0444/06/RN that one-off advice might be treated differently.
5. The employer had not materially misled or misrepresented the limitation position. The Employment Tribunal had wrongly imposed a positive duty on the employer to check and correct the respondent’s calculation. That was not required by section 111(2)(b).
6. The liberal construction of section 111(2)(b) remained good law, but it did not alter the result on these facts.

1. Employment Appeal Tribunal: The appeal from the Employment Tribunal’s pre-hearing review was allowed. The EAT substituted its own decision and dismissed the claim.
2. Employment Tribunal: The Tribunal had held that presentation within the primary period was not reasonably practicable and that the claim was presented within such further period as was reasonable.