Horwood v Lincolnshire County Council

Where an employee resigns without notice, the effective date of termination is fixed when the resignation is effectively communicated to the employer. Communication to a large organisation is effective when the resignation is received and opened by its authorised administrative staff. It does not depend on a named addressee reading it.

An employer cannot later alter that statutory date unilaterally for payroll or administrative reasons. A later consensual arrangement cannot retrospectively rewrite an effective date that has already occurred. A mistaken assumption by an employee and her adviser about the date does not establish that timely presentation was not reasonably practicable where the claim could have been lodged in time.

The claimant resigned with immediate effect, alleging constructive unfair dismissal. Her letters of resignation were received, opened and date-stamped by administrative staff acting for the respondent on 29 January 2010. The respondent later wrote that her resignation would commence on 2 February, for payroll purposes, and paid salary to that date.

The Leicester Employment Tribunal held at a pre-hearing review that the effective date of termination was 29 January. It held that the constructive dismissal and unlawful deductions claims, presented on 29 April, were out of time. It also refused a review.

The claimant appealed both decisions. The central issues were the effective date of termination, whether it had been varied, whether an extension of time was available, and whether the deductions claim remained in time.

1. Appeals dismissed. The Employment Judge correctly held that the claimant's effective date of termination was 29 January 2010. Under section 97(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, her immediate and unequivocal resignation took effect when it was communicated to the respondent.

2. The claimant communicated her resignation when the letters were received, opened and date-stamped at the respondent's offices by authorised administrative staff. Effective communication did not require a particular addressee to have read the letter. The court applied the reasoning in George and Potter, which avoids uncertainty over internal administrative handling of an employee's notice.

3. The respondent's letter of 2 February could not set a new effective date. The contract had already ended. The later date, salary payments and pension arrangements were administrative matters and did not alter the statutory date. The authorities allow a date to be altered by a clear agreement in an appropriate notice-period case, but not retrospectively after an immediate resignation has taken effect. The claimant's alleged acceptance by silence was legally misconceived.

4. The Employment Judge was entitled to find that timely presentation was reasonably practicable. The claimant and her adviser had acted on an erroneous assumption about the effective date. There was no other impediment to lodging the claim by 28 April, including by fax or online. The extension in section 111(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was therefore unavailable.

5. Payments made through 2 February were ex gratia after the contract had ended. They could not sustain the unlawful deductions claim. Although the Employment Judge gave no separate reasons on that claim, its dismissal was correct. The refusal to review disclosed no error of law.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: dismissed the claimant's appeals against the jurisdictional decision and refusal of review: [2012] UKEAT 0462_11_0304.
• Leicester Employment Tribunal: at a pre-hearing review, held on 10 March 2011 that the constructive unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions claims were out of time and refused jurisdiction; on 11 April 2011 it refused a review.