Miah v Axis Security Services Ltd

Rule 4(2) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 applies only to time limits specified by the Tribunal Rules, a practice direction or an order. It does not extend a statutory time limit imposed by section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Where an unfair-dismissal time limit expires on a non-working day, the claim must still be presented in accordance with section 111. The practical difficulties of weekend receipt remain relevant to whether it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. They do not produce an automatic extension to the next working day.

Mr Miah appealed decisions of the Employment Tribunal concerning his unfair-dismissal claim against Axis Security Services Ltd and a wasted-costs order against his solicitors, Syeds Solicitors. The claim was date-stamped as received on Monday 30 January 2017. The parties accepted that the statutory time limit expired on Sunday 29 January 2017.

The Employment Tribunal found that the claim had been presented out of time and that it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time. The appeals proceeded on the issue whether the Tribunal had erred by failing to apply Rule 4(2) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, so that receipt on the next working day would have made the claim timely.

1. The appeals were dismissed. Rule 4(2) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 applies to time limits specified by the Tribunal Rules, a practice direction or an order. It cannot extend the statutory time limit in section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. [20]-[24]
2. Section 111 is a self-contained provision. Its exceptions to the primary three-month limit are those contained within the section itself, including the power to extend time where it was not reasonably practicable to present the complaint within the primary period. [12], [26]
3. Presentation is a unilateral act completed when the claim arrives at the Employment Tribunal office. Whether a claim date-stamped on the next working day was physically delivered earlier is a question of fact. Rule 4(2) does not convert every such claim into a claim presented in time. [24]
4. The principles in Swainston v Hetton Victory Club Ltd and Consignia plc v Sealy address practical difficulties where the limitation period expires on a non-working day. They do not create an automatic procedural extension. The Employment Tribunal had permissibly rejected the evidence about when the claim was posted and correctly applied section 111(2). [13]-[15], [22]-[27]
5. A reasonable statutory time limit does not deny a claimant a fair trial, and the overriding objective under Rule 2 does not modify a statutory requirement. The application for costs was refused because the appeals had raised a reasonably arguable point and were not wholly misconceived. [25], [29]-[30]

• Employment Tribunal — Mr Miah’s unfair-dismissal claim was dismissed as out of time. A subsequent judgment ordered Syeds Solicitors to pay £3,600 in wasted costs: [2017] UKET 1300380/2017.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal — The three appeals were dismissed. The application for costs was refused.