Extension of time to bring a claim

Monday 27 April 2020

The Court of Appeal has ruled in the case of Lowri Beck Services Limited v Brophy that ambiguity in a dismissal letter can be a factor which allows a claimant suffering from dyslexia to be granted an extension to the normal limitation period for bringing a claim.

Mr Brophy had worked for his employer since 2008 and suffered from severe dyslexia. As a result, he struggled to memorise new information or understand verbal instructions unless they were backed up with an additional explanation or were confirmed in writing.

Mr Brophy was subject to disciplinary proceedings following a report from a customer in relation to his conduct. Mr Brophy was told by telephone on 29 June 2017 that he was being dismissed with immediate effect for gross misconduct. He received a letter on 6 July 2017, which was dated 4 July 2017, confirming his dismissal on 29 June 2017.

Mr Brophy’s brother, who was not legally qualified, understood that he had been dismissed as of 6 July 2017, as that was the date that his brother had received the letter. The ACAS Early Conciliation process was duly initiated on 30 September 2017 and a claim was lodged in the Employment Tribunal (ET) for unfair and wrongful dismissal as well as disability discrimination on 5 December 2017.

This was, strictly speaking, outside of the limitation periods for Mr Brophy’s claims. However, the ET held that time should be extended with regard to his claim for unfair and wrongful dismissal due to a genuine misunderstanding on the part of Mr Brophy’s brother as to the date of dismissal. It had not therefore been reasonably practicable for the claim to have been lodged in time.

It also held that, with regard to the disability discrimination claim, it would be just and equitable to extend time as the employer would not suffer any particular prejudice as a result of allowing the claim to proceed.

The employer appealed the ET’s decision on the basis that ignorance of the relevant time limits should not justify an extension of time. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed the appeal holding that there was no error of law.

The EAT held that this was a matter of fact, not law, for the ET to decide. In this case, the ET had decided, as a matter of fact, that Mr Brophy’s brother had misunderstood the meaning of the letter dated 4 July 2017. He had not, however, misunderstood the law as he knew that the claim had to be lodged within three months of the date of dismissal.

The employer argued in the Court of Appeal (CoA) that it was unreasonable for Mr Brophy to consider the letter of 4 July 2017 as the letter which terminated his employment. The CoA disagreed with this point noting that “the terms of the letter were on any reasonable view at least ambiguous”. It was ruled that it was entirely reasonable for Mr Brophy to consider the letter dated 4 July 2017 (received on 6 July 2017) to be his formal dismissal.

Lesson learnt

The case highlights the importance of ensuring that dismissal letters sent to employees are sent in a timely fashion and the contents are clear and not ambiguous as to the effective date of termination.

If you have any questions about tribunal time limits, please email or call our Employment Law team today on 0113 207 0000.