Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references foundational cases that shape the interpretation of "reasonably practicable" and "reasonable" within the context of employment claims:

• Marks & Spencer v Williams Ryan [2005] IRLR 562: Clarified that tribunals must assess not only what the claimant knew but also what they should have known to act reasonably.
• Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1984] ICR 372 (Palmer and Saunders): Distinguished between "reasonably practicable" and "reasonable," emphasizing their respective tests.
• Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan [1979] ICR 52: Highlighted the importance of the employee's state of mind and understanding regarding their rights and the time limits for claims.
• London International College Limited v Sen [1993] IRLR 333: Emphasized examining the complainant’s state of mind and understanding in determining the reasonableness of delays.

Legal Reasoning

The core legal debate centered on the interpretation of section 111(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which permits claims to be presented beyond three months if it is "reasonably practicable" under the circumstances. The Employment Appeal Tribunal analyzed whether the Employment Tribunal adequately considered Ms. Thompson's knowledge and the context influencing her delayed claim. The Appeal Tribunal found that the original Tribunal failed to thoroughly examine critical aspects of Ms. Thompson's understanding of her rights and the procedural requirements to file a claim.

Key points in the reasoning included:

• The distinction between "reasonably practicable" and "reasonable," and their respective applications.
• The necessity for the Tribunal to assess both the claimant's actual knowledge and the knowledge they should have had.
• The requirement for a fact-sensitive analysis that delves into the claimant's state of mind and the impact of external advisories.

The Appeal Tribunal concluded that without a detailed exploration of these factors, the Employment Tribunal's decision lacked a robust legal foundation, necessitating a remittance for a comprehensive reevaluation.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the necessity for Employment Tribunals to conduct meticulous fact-finding when assessing the reasonableness of delays in claim filings. It underscores the importance of considering both the claimant's actual knowledge and the standard of knowledge they should possess under the circumstances. Future cases will likely cite this judgment to emphasize the rigorous standards required in evaluating procedural delays, ensuring that claimants are afforded fair consideration based on their capacity and understanding.

Additionally, the decision to remove the Governing Body of Choppington First School as a respondent without separate adjudication highlights the complexities in multi-party employment disputes and sets a precedent for handling such inclusions judiciously.

"Reasonably Practicable"

This term refers to what could be expected of a claimant in bringing forward a case within the prescribed time frame, considering their knowledge and circumstances. It’s not just about what the claimant actually knew, but also what they should have known if they had acted reasonably.

Three-Month Filing Period

Under the Employment Rights Act 1996, employees generally have three months from the date of dismissal to file a claim for unfair dismissal. Extensions beyond this period are rare and require the claimant to demonstrate that delays were justified under the law.

Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT)

The EAT is a higher court that reviews decisions made by Employment Tribunals. It assesses whether the original tribunal applied the law correctly and followed proper procedures, focusing primarily on points of law rather than re-examining factual determinations.