header-logo header-logo

16 August 2007
Issue: 7286 / Categories: Legal News , Tribunals , Employment
printer mail-detail

EAT upholds harsh time limit decision

News

An employment tribunal decision not to accept an unfair dismissal claim which was presented 88 seconds late has been upheld by the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

The claimant had tried to submit his claim electronically at about 11.45pm: his claim became out of time at midnight. However, he used the wrong web address, typing “qsi” instead of “gsi”. He then sent a test message about 11.57pm, and sent his actual claim form in 1 minute 28 seconds after midnight.

In Besley v National Grid, Mr Justice Silber said although he could understand the claimant feeling aggrieved since the delay was so small, it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented on time so the tribunal’s decision that the claim was out of time was correct.
Bird & Bird employment lawyer Jeremy Nixon says: “Although the result of this case is extremely hard on the claimant, it perhaps not surprising given the wording of the statute and the public policy considerations which require time limits, particularly those concerned with when claims are commenced, to be rigidly adhered to. Human nature is such that people tend to leave things to the last minute. This case is a stark illustration of the risks this approach entails.”

Issue: 7286 / Categories: Legal News , Tribunals , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll