The basic rule is that a claim of unfair dismissal must be presented to a tribunal within three months of the date of dismissal, and that late claims will be accepted only where the applicant can demonstrate that it was not "reasonably practicable" to have presented the claim within that period.

As may be imagined, this apparently simple rule has spawned a huge number of cases on pedantic points - such as what is meant by "presented" and, more importantly, what is meant by "reasonably practicable".

The most recent such case was Marks & Spencer v Williams-Ryan.

Mrs Williams-Ryan had been dismissed for gross misconduct. She was sent a letter inviting her to appeal and, perhaps bizarrely, advising her that she had the right to bring a tribunal claim. No mention was made of the time limit. The Citizens Advice Bureau advised her to appeal but did not discuss tribunal proceedings.

The appeal proceedings took more than three months to conclude. When the decision went against her, Mrs Williams-Ryan brought a tribunal claim, only to discover that she was out of time. She argued that she thought she had to wait for the appeal to be concluded before commencing proceedings, and as nobody had told her about the three-month time limit, it was not "reasonably practicable" for her to have complied with it. The tribunal agreed. M&S appealed.

The Court of Appeal's view was that the tribunal's decision was "generous", although not unreasonably so. Time limits, the court held, are to be interpreted liberally in favour of employees and that generosity is of particular importance where employees receive incorrect or incomplete advice.

It is rare for employers to specifically advise dismissed employees of their right to bring tribunal proceedings. Quite why they should wish to do so is not immediately clear. The moral of M&S v Williams-Ryan is that where that advice is given, it should be accompanied firstly by mention of the three-month time limit and, secondly, by confirmation that there is no need to wait for the internal appeal to be concluded before proceedings can be commenced.

An employee could not then argue that it was not "reasonably practicable" to comply.

* Stephen Elliott is a solicitor in the employment team of North-East law firm Ward Hadaway. He can be contacted on 0191-204 4000 or by email at stephen.elliott@wardhadaway.com

Published: 10/05/2005