Time Limits and their Application in Unfair Dismissal Legal Proceedings

An employee must bring an unfair dismissal claim under their employment contract within three months of the effective date of termination. Time limits for presenting claims to the Employment Tribunal are normally strictly enforced. Extensions are rare. However, in a recent case (Marks & Spencer v Williams-Ryan) the Court of Appeal agreed with the Employment Appeal Tribunal that an employee of Marks & Spencer should be granted extra time for lodging her claim.

Ms Williams-Ryan was dismissed from her job at Marks & Spencer on 17 April 2003. Two days later she had a short telephone conversation with an adviser at the Citizens’ Advice Bureau who recommended that she use Marks & Spencer’s internal appeal procedure to pursue her case. No advice was given regarding lodging a Tribunal claim. Marks & Spencer sent Ms Williams-Ryan a letter confirming her dismissal. The letter also outlined her right of appeal and informed her of her right to take her case to the Employment Tribunal . No mention was made, however of the strict three-month time limit for doing so.

The time limit for bringing her unfair dismissal claim expired on 16 July 2003 but the internal appeal procedure took so long that Ms Williams-Ryan was not notified of the unsuccessful outcome of her appeal until 31 July. She mistakenly thought that she had to wait for this decision before taking her case to the Employment Tribunal. She submitted the originating application for her claim on 11 August and it was received by the Tribunal on 15 August 2003.

The Employment Tribunal originally found that it was not reasonably practicable for Ms Williams-Ryan to have presented her complaint within the three month time limit. Marks & Spencer appealed against this decision, on the grounds that the Employment Tribunal had erred in law, but it was upheld by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The company then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that whilst a time extension is not generally available if a solicitor or legal adviser gives incorrect advice, it is less clear whether the same would apply to incorrect advice given by a Citizens’ Advice Bureau adviser. In any case, the question of negligence on the part of the Citizens’ Advice Bureau did not arise because no advice on unfair dismissal had been given. There was therefore no rule of law that prevented the Tribunal from finding that it was not reasonably practicable for the employee in this case to present her case within three months.

Russell Caller, a UK Solicitor with Gillhams said, "This is an unusual decision. The Court of Appeal admitted that it was ‘generous’ and the fact that Marks & Spencer’s internal appeal procedure had taken so long was a major factor in reaching this decision. Had Ms Williams-Ryan sought legal advice regarding her dismissal, her claim could have been brought in time and all the subsequent argument over her right to bring it avoided. It is imperative to seek knowledgeable legal advice from solicitors experienced in the area in order to avoid unnecessary legal proceedings."