I am like a dog with a bone with my blogs on this point this week !

Yet another EAT case concerning whether a claim has been brought in time.

The limitation period for unfair dimissal is three months.  Mr Scerbaks presented his claim on 7 March 2009.  This means that his effective date of termination had to be 8 December 2008 or later.  At Tribunal there was a difference in evidence in relation to the date of termination.  The Judge preferred the Respondent’s evidence largely because Mr Scerbaks, on three occasions in his claim, asserted events occuring prior to 8 December 2008.  The Judge determined (and the EAT upheld) that his claim was therefore presented three days late and there were no reasons to extend time, it being reasonably practicable for him to comply.

Let this be a lesson to all Claimants to err on the side of caution when it comes to presenting claims, particularly if there is any lack of clarity/dispute about the termination date.

What is probably most interesting about this case is the passionate written submission from the Claimant in relation to the trials of representing himself :-

Every letter we receive write etc consumes from us unconscionable resources.  Every communication causes us to drill through a matter for us yet unknown.  And even if we hobble through proceedings – we still struggle to get proper legal grip of the case in terms of legal deployment of our argument in the context of the case.  It is obvious that we are simple working class people who’s socio-economic function is mles away from the job we are trying to act on.  We are just ordinary men trying to do extraordinary things.”

I wonder how many other litigants in person (or solicitors come to that) would agree with him ?!!!