[Thanks to Paul Smith of Broadway House Chambers for preparing this case summary]
If a Claimant has instructed advisers to act for him but failed to present his claim for unfair dismissal in time, can he successfully argue that it was not reasonably practicable for him to do so?
No, says the EAT in El-Kholy v Rentokil.
This case stands as a timely reminder to practitioners of the perils of failing to present a client's claim in time, where the 'escape clause' to extend the tribunal's jurisdiction depends on a Claimant satisfying the 'not reasonably practicable' test. This particular case was one of unfair dismissal but the same rule would apply to s.47B detriment claims and those in respect of unauthorised deductions, for example.
Following a helpful review of the authorities Slade J concluded that in such cases the Claimant's remedy would be against the advisers, rather than the Respondent - however, she added that each case will depend on its own facts.