In Mr M Gillard v Minster Law Limited a long-serving law firm worker dismissed last Christmas brought his claim four days late and so was out of time, an employment tribunal has found.
Employment Judge McAvoy Newns found that the claimant, named as Mr M Gillard, should have known he had been dismissed at a meeting with his firm, Yorkshire practice Minster Law. That was the start point for the three-month limitation period for bringing a claim, it was ruled, rather than the point a few days later when Gillard received written confirmation.
The judge said: ‘The case law makes it clear that it doesn’t matter whether the claim was presented four minutes or four days after [the deadline].’
Gillard, who worked for Minster for over 18 years, brought claims for unfair dismissal and breach of contract, and argued his employment was terminated on 22 December when he received his dismissal letter. The firm stated that it terminated his employment on 16 December when Gillard was informed, during his outcome meeting, that he was being dismissed immediately. The claim was submitted on 29 April this year.
The tribunal heard that the dismissal letter stated that ‘your employment has been terminated with immediate effect’. Gillard pointed to his contract, which said that all notice periods ‘must be in writing’.
He told the tribunal he understood how to undertake legal research and knew time limits were important. But he said his legal representatives had confirmed that his effective date of termination was 22 December and he expected them to ensure the claim was issued within the appropriate timescales.
The judge said Gillard was aware his employment was terminating immediately during the meeting and that the confirmation of ‘dismissal’ in the meeting notes was ‘clear and unambiguous’. Gillard knew this was a decision meeting in advance of it taking place. The judge added that Gillard was not paid beyond 16 December, so the firm was making clear that the employment relationship had ended. The judge said the claimant had access to solicitors many months prior to lodging his claim and it was reasonable to expect him to know the deadline.
If Gillard was told by his solicitors that the termination date was 22 December ‘that advice was incorrect’, the judge said.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
