The case of Northamptonshire County Council v. Entwhistle ([2010] UKEAT 0540_09_2505) addresses a pivotal issue in employment law: the application of the provision allowing employment tribunals to consider unfair dismissal claims presented outside the primary time limit. The appellant, Northamptonshire County Council ("the Council"), contested the Employment Appeal Tribunal's (EAT) decision that allowed the claimant, Mr. Entwhistle, to proceed with his unfair dismissal claim despite it being filed beyond the statutory deadline. The central question revolves around whether it was "reasonably practicable" for Mr. Entwhistle to file his claim within the stipulated time frame, especially in light of erroneous advice from his solicitor.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld that Mr. Entwhistle’s claim for unfair dismissal was dismissed due to the primary time limit being exceeded. Initially, Mr. Entwhistle was dismissed for gross misconduct on 13 November 2008, setting a three-month deadline to present his claim. However, due to internal appeals and an extension under the Employment Act 2002, the extended deadline was erroneously communicated as three months from the appeal’s finalization, misleading Mr. Entwhistle and his solicitor, Mr. Lee, to believe the deadline was 27 June 2009 instead of the actual extended period of six months.

Mr. Entwhistle filed his claim on 27 May 2009, which was just over two weeks late. The Regional Employment Judge initially allowed the claim, citing exceptional circumstances. However, upon appeal, the EAT determined that the solicitor's negligence in failing to identify the Council’s error rendered it reasonably practicable for Mr. Entwhistle to meet the deadline. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the claim was dismissed.

The judgment extensively references several key cases that have shaped the interpretation of the "reasonably practicable" standard under Section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996:

• Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd [1974]: Established the principle that Section 111(2)(b) should be interpreted liberally in favor of the employee.
• Walls Meat Company Ltd v Khan [1979]: Highlighted that ignorance of the time limit, even when arising from an adviser’s negligence, could render it not reasonably practicable.
• Riley v Tesco Stores Ltd [1980]: Emphasized the necessity of examining each case based on its facts, cautioning against rigid adherence to established rules.
• Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1984]: Discussed the role of misrepresentation by the employer in determining practicability.
• Sen [1993]: Illustrated that erroneous advice from an employment tribunal could affect the reasonable practicability assessment.
• Marks & Spencer PLC v Williams-Ryan [2008]: Confirmed the non-negotiable nature of the Dedman principle, rejecting any leniency towards claims influenced by solicitor negligence.
• Ashcroft v Haberdasher's Aske's Boys School [2008]: Reinforced the stance that negligence by a skilled adviser adversely affects the claimant's ability to meet deadlines.

The court's legal reasoning navigated the tension between established precedents and the unique circumstances of the case. Key points include:

• Application of Dedman Principle: The court reaffirmed that the Dedman principle imposes a stringent standard where negligence by a skilled adviser typically negates claims of reasonable practicability.
• Solicitor's Negligence: The negligence of Mr. Lee, the claimant’s solicitor, in not identifying the Council's error was pivotal. Given that Mr. Lee was experienced in employment law, his failure was a direct breach of the duty of care owed to Mr. Entwhistle.
• Exceptional Circumstances: The Regional Employment Judge had initially found exceptional circumstances due to the Council's misleading letter. However, the EAT concluded that these circumstances did not absolve the negligence of the solicitor.
• Burden of Proof: Under the Dedman principle, the burden of demonstrating that it was not reasonably practicable lies with the claimant. The EAT found that Mr. Entwhistle could have acted differently had accurate advice been provided.

This judgment reinforces the stringent application of Section 111(2)(b) concerning time limits for unfair dismissal claims. It underscores that even when initial misinformation is provided by an employer, the responsibility ultimately lies with the claimant and their advisers to ensure compliance with statutory deadlines. The ruling serves as a precedent that solicitor negligence, especially from those specialized in employment law, will not be excused as a mitigating factor for late claims. Consequently, employers can be more confident in the stability of procedural timelines, and claimants are reminded of the critical importance of diligent legal counsel.

Reasonably Practicable

The term "reasonably practicable" refers to what a reasonable person in the claimant's position could have done to meet the deadline for presenting a claim. This assessment considers the circumstances at the time and whether the claimant took appropriate steps to comply with legal requirements.

Unfair Dismissal

Unfair dismissal occurs when an employee is terminated from their job without a fair reason or without following the proper procedures. The Employment Rights Act 1996 provides protections for employees against such dismissals.

Dedman Principle

Originating from the case Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd, this principle stipulates that if a claimant has consulted a skilled adviser who has provided negligent advice leading to a missed deadline, the claimant cannot rely on the extension clause to present their claim.

Section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996

This section outlines the time limits within which a claimant must present an unfair dismissal claim to an employment tribunal. Typically, claims must be filed within three months of the termination date, with potential extensions under specific circumstances.

The Entwhistle v Northamptonshire County Council judgment serves as a crucial affirmation of the Dedman principle within the realm of unfair dismissal claims. By upholding the EAT's decision to dismiss the late claim, the court emphasized the paramount importance of claimant responsibility, even in the face of misleading information from employers. The case delineates the boundaries of "reasonably practicable," making it clear that negligence by skilled legal advisers does not inherently excuse a claimant from meeting statutory deadlines. This ruling offers clarity and reinforces established legal standards, ensuring that both employers and employees have a clear understanding of their obligations and the consequences of procedural lapses.