Mr Singleton was summarily dismissed by telecoms group T-Mobile on 23 November 2010. He appealed within seven days but delays at T-Mobile meant the appeal result did not reach him until 22 February. It was unsuccessful.

In the days immediately after his dismissal, Mr Singleton had taken “one-off” telephone advice from solicitors in a “free consultation”. They wrongly advised him to wait for the result of his appeal before issuing tribunal proceedings. He took no more legal advice and went on to represent himself, lodging his ET1 claim form one day late. The EAT held that it was “reasonably practicable” for him to present his claim in time and, as he had issued the claim one day late, his claim was disallowed.

T-Mobile (UK) Limited v Singleton UKEAT/0410/10

Mr Afolabi was granted access to his personnel file, the contents of which caused him to believe that he had been the victim of race discrimination. Mr Afolabi took a discrimination claim against his employer who resisted it on the basis that the claim was out of time. Specifically, the employer complained that the subject matter of the claim had occurred nine years earlier. The tribunal allowed Mr Afolabi’s claim to proceed. On appeal the Court of Appeal noted that the tribunal had a discretion to extend the time limit, and that this discretion was not in itself time-barred. This meant that the tribunal could, where the circumstances demanded it, extend the time limit even by such an exceptionally long period.

London Borough of Southwark v Afolabi [2003] EWCA Civ 15

At a pre-hearing review (which Mr Wadher, due to ill-health, was unable to attend as a witness) the tribunal decided that it would be just and equitable to allow a late claim. The EAT endorsed this decision. The EAT stated that there was plenty of material (e.g. medical certificates) from which the tribunal could conclude that from September 2007 onwards Mr Wadher was suffering from stress and depression. Although the evidence did not specifically indicate why, if Mr Wadher was well enough in April 2008 to present his claim, he was not well enough in March or February, the EAT thought that would have been too rigid an approach. Depression can delay and impair decision-making, but need not make decision-making impossible.

Accurist Watches Ltd v Wadher UKEAT/0102/09

A police officer, suffering from mental ill-health, instructed solicitors to pursue a claim against her employer. Unfortunately, due to a misunderstanding, the individual’s claim was lodged six weeks out of time. The employer’s argument that the case should not proceed was rejected by the tribunal which decided that the individual’s ill-health caused her failure to give full information to her lawyers and was the reason for the late submission of the ET1. The Court of Appeal upheld the tribunal’s ruling, commenting that whether a claim will be accepted is a matter to be determined by individual tribunals which have heard the relevant facts.

Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v Caston [2009] EWCA Civ 1298