Reasonable Practicability and External Advice: DHL Supply Chain Ltd v. Fazackerley [2018]

Introduction

The case of DHL Supply Chain Ltd v. Fazackerley ([2018] UKEAT 0019_18_1004) addresses pivotal issues surrounding employment dismissal and the procedural nuances involved in lodging claims for unfair and wrongful dismissal. Presented before the United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), the dispute involves DHL Supply Chain Ltd (hereafter referred to as the Respondent) and Mr. Fazackerley (hereafter referred to as the Claimant).

The Claimant was terminated from his employment on grounds of gross misconduct, effective from March 15, 2017. Following an internal appeal process that culminated on June 22, 2017, with an unfavorable outcome for the Claimant, he sought to initiate proceedings by lodging an ET1 form on July 19, 2017. This action, however, was outside the statutory three-month time frame prescribed by Section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The core issue revolves around whether it was "reasonably practicable" for the Claimant to file his claims within this statutory period, given the circumstances surrounding his dismissal and the advice received from the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS).

Summary of the Judgment

The Employment Judge Bloom initially ruled in favor of the Claimant, determining that the delay in lodging the claims was not reasonably practicable, thereby dismissing the claims of unfair and wrongful dismissal. The Respondent appealed this decision to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Upon review, the EAT upheld the original decision, agreeing that the Claimant's inability to file within the three-month statutory period was justifiable. This conclusion was significantly influenced by the erroneous advice provided by ACAS, which directed the Claimant to prioritize exhausting the internal appeals process before considering external legal action. The EAT emphasized that such advice, especially when incorrect, can impede an employee's ability to comply with statutory time limits, thereby rendering the delay reasonable under the "reasonably practicable" test.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Judgment extensively refers to several landmark cases that have shaped the interpretation of the "reasonably practicable" standard in employment law:

Palmer v Southend on Sea Borough Council [1984]: Established foundational principles for interpreting Section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, emphasizing a liberal interpretation in favor of the employee.
Dedman v British Building & Engineering Appliances Ltd [1974]: Highlighted that negligence by legal advisors can negate claims of reasonable practicability in meeting statutory deadlines.
Riley [1980]: Discussed the implications of advice from non-solicitor advisors, such as Citizens Advice Bureaus, and its impact on reasonable practicability assessments.
Remploy Ltd v Brain [2010]: Provided insights into how informal legal advice and actions based on such advice can influence the determination of reasonable practicability.
John Lewis Partnership v Charman [2011]: Illustrated scenarios where complete ignorance of the right to claim unfair dismissal necessitates considering claims as reasonably not practicable to file on time.

These precedents collectively underscore the judiciary's approach to balancing the strict adherence to statutory time limits with the practical realities employees face, especially when misled by advisory bodies.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning hinged on the interpretation of Section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which stipulates a three-month time limit for lodging claims of unfair dismissal. The pivotal question was whether external advice, in this case from ACAS, rendered it reasonably impracticable for the Claimant to meet this deadline.

The EAT assessed that the Claimant's reliance on ACAS's guidance to exhaust internal appeal processes before seeking external legal recourse constituted reasonable grounds for the delay. This perspective aligns with the principles established in prior cases, where the court acknowledges that employees may not always be fully aware of their rights or the procedural intricacies involved in filing claims.

Furthermore, the court considered the nature of the advice received. Given that the ACA's guidance implicitly deferred the necessity of adhering strictly to the statutory period, the Claimant acted reasonably under the circumstances. The Judgment also noted the absence of any fault on the Claimant's part and recognized the inaccuracies in ACAS's advice as contributory factors to the delay.

Impact

This Judgment has significant implications for future employment disputes, particularly in cases where employees receive incorrect or misleading advice from advisory bodies. It underscores the judiciary's willingness to consider external factors, such as the quality and accuracy of advisory services, when evaluating the reasonableness of delays in lodging claims.

Employers and advisory organizations alike must recognize the weight their guidance can carry in legal proceedings. For employees, this decision provides a degree of protection against unintentional non-compliance with statutory deadlines resulting from well-meaning but flawed advice.

Additionally, the case reinforces the importance of accurate and clear communication of legal rights and procedures by advisory services like ACAS, highlighting the potential legal ramifications of providing erroneous counsel.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Reasonably Practicable: This legal standard assesses whether an individual could reasonably comply with a statutory requirement, considering all circumstances. In employment law, it evaluates if an employee could feasibly meet time limits for lodging claims.

Early Conciliation: A mandatory process facilitated by ACAS aimed at resolving employment disputes before formal tribunal proceedings are initiated. It serves as a preliminary step to encourage settlement without litigation.

Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT): A specialized court that hears appeals from Employment Tribunals on points of law. It does not re-examine factual findings but reviews legal interpretations and applications made by the lower tribunal.

ET1 Form: The official document submitted by an employee to initiate a claim for employment-related disputes, such as unfair dismissal, before an Employment Tribunal.

Conclusion

The DHL Supply Chain Ltd v. Fazackerley case serves as a crucial reference point in employment law, particularly concerning the "reasonably practicable" standard and the influence of external advisory services on statutory compliance. By recognizing the impact of inaccurate advice from ACAS on the Claimant's ability to meet legal deadlines, the EAT has set a precedent that emphasizes fairness and the complexities employees may face in navigating legal processes.

This Judgment not only reinforces existing legal principles but also encourages a more empathetic and situational analysis of claims involving procedural delays. It highlights the judiciary's role in ensuring that legal frameworks serve justice, especially when external factors impede an individual's capacity to act within prescribed legal bounds.