It was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have submitted his claim on time; the claim was submitted two days out of time but no extension of time could be allowed.

The claimant was employed as a care assistant from April 2018 until his dismissal in December 2024.  The issue was whether it was reasonably practicable for the claimant not to lodge his claims between 10th December 2024 and 9th April 2025 which was the primary time limit when the extension for early conciliation was taken into account.

The claimant entered into early conciliation after having been advised by a Senior Care Worker to contact the Labour Relations Agency.  The conciliation certificate was issued on 7th March 2025. The claimant’s sister, a paralegal, asked if he had lodged his claims by 7th April (the time limit). When he said he had not, she assisted the claimant to have them submitted on 9th April some two days out of time.

The claimant submitted that the delay was not unreasonable citing that he had caring responsibilities, he was recovering from a hernia operation, he had no professional help, and he had a lack of legal knowledge or IT ability. On the other hand, the respondent argued that there was no leniency to be applied merely because the claimant was an unrepresented litigant and stated that there was insufficient medical evidence to show that the hernia operation would have affected the claimant’s ability to cope with his caring responsibilities and the ability to be able to present his claim on time.

The Tribunal found that although the claimant was a personal litigant he still had professional help during the period.  This came through the Labour Relations Agency and he had also contacted the Law Centre.  The Tribunal stated that it was unlikely that the claimant would not have been advised on the importance of time limits.  The respondent argued that the claimant had freedom from caring responsibilities when his wife who he cared for would sleep during the day.  The Tribunal found this use of ‘freedom’ to be tactless from the respondent and did not appreciate the anxiety that would come from worrying whether his wife would live or die.

Bearing in mind it all in the round, the Tribunal found that there were opportunities for the claimant to seek advice and support as was noted.  This meant it was at least feasible and practicable for the claimant to have submitted his claim on time. The claimant accepted he knew he had one month from the early conciliation certificate to submit his claim yet despite that did not do so. As a result, it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have submitted his claim between 7th March and 7th April and as a result no extension of time could be allowed.

One could look at this case and say it is harsh considering that the claim was only submitted two days out of time.  However, the short period is not a relevant consideration and instead it has to be shown by the claimant that it was not reasonably practicable for him to have submitted the claim in time.  This was not possible for the claimant considering that he had been specifically advised that he had one month from the conciliation certificate and he had the advice by way of his sister, a paralegal. Despite caring responsibilities this did not displace the fact that it was reasonably practicable to submit the claim on time.

NI Tribunal decisions are available on the OITFET website.