May LJ proposed a test of ‘reasonable possibility’ for when a claimant should be allowed to extend the time for lodging a claim before the employment Tribunal: ‘[W]e think that one can say that to construe the words ‘reasonably practicable’ as the equivalent of ‘reasonable’ is to take a view that is too favourable to the employee. On the other hand, ‘reasonably practicable’ means more than merely what is reasonably capable physically of being done-different, for instance, from its construction in the context of the legislation relating to factories: compare Marshall v Gotham Co Ltd [1954] AC 360, HL. In the context in which the words are used in the 1978 Consolidation Act, however ineptly as we think, they mean something between these two. Perhaps to read the word ‘practicable’ as the equivalent of ‘feasible’ as Sir John Brightman did in [Singh v Post Office [1973] ICR 437, NIRC] and to ask colloquially and untrammelled by too much legal logic-‘was it reasonably feasible to present the complaint to the [employment] tribunal within the relevant three months?’ – is the best approach to the correct application of the relevant subsection.’
Where a mistake is alleged, it is the reasonableness of such ignorance or mistake that is in the end determinative of whether it is reasonably practicable to make a complaint in time.
May LJ
[1984] IRLR 119, [1984] ICR 372
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Scottish and Southern Energy Plc v Michael Alan Birch EAT 4-Sep-2001
The claim was submitted outside the time limitation period, and the employer appealed the finding of jurisdiction. The employee was not represented, and thought the limit ran from a meeting after the dismissal. Where there is a mistaken belief as to . .
Cited – Tuntum Housing Association v Aryeetey EAT 12-Oct-2007
EAT Time Limits – Reasonably practicability
Practice and Procedure – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity
Chairman’s mistake as to necessity for further claim following Claimant’s solicitors . .
Cited – The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Theobald EAT 10-Jan-2007
EAT Claim for unfair dismissal not presented timeously, within three months, but was presented thirteen days thereafter. During most of the three month period, the Claimant had an outstanding appeal process . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 September 2021; Ref: scu.183470
