Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Case lawEmployee relationsEmployment tribunals

Mossman v Bray Management Ltd, Employment Appeal Tribunal, 20 December 2004

by Eversheds HR Group 5 Apr 2005
by Eversheds HR Group 5 Apr 2005

Application out of time
Mossman v Bray Management Ltd, Employment Appeal Tribunal, 20 December 2004

Mossman’s employment was terminated on 30 September 2003. His claim for unfair dismissal had to be presented by the end of 29 December 2003, an ordinary working day during the Christmas period.

Mossman and his representative agreed that because of the Christmas period, electronic submission of the form would be safer than the post. It was sent electronically on 29 December 2003 at 2.33pm.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

On 26 January 2004, Mossman’s representative telephoned the tribunal and was told there was no record of the claim form, which he then re-submitted. However, the tribunal held the claim was not presented in time because the form was not received in either paper or electronic form by the tribunal on or before the relevant date. The tribunal refused to extend the deadline, and Mossman unsuccessfully appealed.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found it was reasonably practicable for Mossman to have submitted his claim by 29 December 2003. It referred to the wording at the start of the electronic form, which reminds users that it is their responsibility to ensure it is received within the time limit, and further, that there is no guarantee the tribunal will receive it on the same day. However, the EAT said that the employment tribunal service should consider implementing a method of informing claimants that their electronic forms have been received.

Eversheds HR Group

previous post
MP seeks kid-glove treatment for bouncers
next post
NHS acts to make medical and dental careers more accessible

You may also like

HR manager with ‘messy’ work loses discrimination case

25 Jun 2025

Fear of confrontation means disputes escalate – research

25 Jun 2025

Man who used company credit card for himself...

23 Jun 2025

Seven ways to prepare now for the Employment...

20 Jun 2025

AI company did not racially discriminate against Chinese...

20 Jun 2025

Barts nurse told to remove watermelon image claims...

19 Jun 2025

WFH employee who falsified timesheets loses unfair dismissal...

16 Jun 2025

Sleeping security officer wins £20k for unfair dismissal

16 Jun 2025

Menopause claims triple in two years, tribunal figures...

16 Jun 2025

The employer strikes back: the rise of ‘quiet...

13 Jun 2025

  • Empowering working parents and productivity during the summer holidays SPONSORED | Businesses play a...Read more
  • AI is here. Your workforce should be ready. SPONSORED | From content creation...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+