Koudriachova v University College London

Time limits for unfair-dismissal and unlawful-deduction complaints are mandatory jurisdictional limits. They cannot be waived or conferred by agreement, and the point may be raised at any stage.

Where a claimant knows of the right to claim but presents it late because of a mistaken understanding of the deadline, the material question is whether that mistaken belief was reasonably held. An Employment Tribunal may reject that contention where the claimant obtained or sought only imprecise information and failed to obtain necessary clarification.

The Claimant appealed against a London (Central) Employment Tribunal decision, sent to the parties on 1 February 2012, which struck out her unfair-dismissal and unlawful-deduction complaints for want of jurisdiction.

Her employment ended on 28 February 2011. The relevant complaints were lodged on 28 May 2011, one day after the applicable three-month time limits expired. She contended that she had acted on advice from Tribunal staff and that another Tribunal had taken a different approach to an earlier claim.

The appeal proceeded on limited grounds concerning reasonable practicability, the alleged inconsistency with the other Tribunal decision, and the Respondent's late raising of the time point.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal made findings open to it that the Claimant presented the complaints one day late because of her own mistaken belief that the deadline was 28 May 2011.

2. Under Employment Rights Act 1996, sections 23 and 111, the time limits are jurisdictional and mandatory. The Tribunal could consider the issue even though neither the Respondent nor the Tribunal had raised it earlier. Jurisdiction could not be created by agreement, waiver or estoppel: Radakovits v Abbey National plc [2009] EWCA Civ 1346.

3. Where a claimant is aware of the right to claim, an error about the deadline requires examination of whether the mistaken belief was reasonably held. The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that the Claimant had received only an imprecise answer to an imprecise question and had failed to seek the necessary clarification. It could therefore conclude that it had been reasonably practicable to present the claims in time: Walls Meat Co Ltd v Khan [1979] ICR 52.

4. The alleged inconsistency with the Walker Tribunal decision disclosed no error. That decision had not been made or communicated when the present Tribunal ruled. Further, it concerned claims presented well within their applicable time limit and did not require a finding on the reasonableness of the Claimant's mistaken belief.

5. No error of law was established.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: The Claimant's appeal was permitted at a Rule 3(10) hearing on limited grounds. The EAT dismissed the appeal.
• Employment Tribunal, London (Central): Employment Judge Glennie struck out the unfair-dismissal and unlawful-deduction complaints as one day out of time and outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The decision was sent to the parties on 1 February 2012.