C Raison v DF Capital Bank: EAT Ruling on Early Conciliation Time Limits for Unfair Dismissal Claims
The Employment Appeal Tribunal's ruling clarifies time limits for unfair dismissal claims during early conciliation processes
In the case of C Raison v DF Capital Bank Ltd & Ors (EAT 2025/86), the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) assessed a crucial aspect of the Employment Rights Act 1996 related to the time limits for filing unfair dismissal claims, particularly regarding the Early Conciliation (EC) process. The case revolved around whether the period spent in EC could extend the three-month limitation period for claims under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA).
Claimant Ms. C Raison had her employment terminated on 17 February 2023 but was informed by the Employment Tribunal (ET) that her claim for unfair dismissal was submitted too late. She initiated the EC process on 11 February 2023, receiving an EC certificate on 28 February 2023. The pivotal issue was whether the limitation period should be extended for the entire duration of EC or limited to the days following the effective date of termination (EDT).
The ET ruled that the limitation period was extended only for the EC days that occurred after the EDT. This narrow interpretation led to a finding that the claimant filed her claim three days late after the statutory clock reset post-termination.
Upon her appeal, the EAT upheld the ET's decision, drawing attention to the statutory language in section 207B(3) ERA. The EAT explained that while the aim of this provision is to "stop the limitation clock" during the EC period, it does not permit an extension beyond the days post-EDT. They noted that since Ms. Raison was not disadvantaged by the time spent in EC prior to her termination, no legal grounds existed for further extending the limitation period.
The EAT also invoked previous rulings, specifically the 2017 case of Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Serra Garau, which confirmed that if the limitation clock has not begun, it cannot be paused or extended by EC involvement during that timeframe.
This judgment acts as a significant reminder for claimants regarding the necessity of adhering to specified time frames when filing claims. The decision underscores the intricacies of navigating the intersection of EC periods and statutory limitations for unfair dismissal claims, emphasising the importance of seeking legal guidance throughout this process.
The dismissal of the appeal reinforces the direct statutory interpretation outlined by the EAT and highlights the consequences of failing to submit a claim within the required timeframes, even when engaging in early conciliation. It firmly establishes the rigidity of statutory provisions surrounding limitations, meaning claimants must remain vigilant about the timing of their legal proceedings and remedies.
This ruling sets a clear precedent for future cases, shedding light on the harsh realities employees may face when trying to defend their rights in compliance with employment regulations and their associated timelines.