D Udila v Bylor Services Ltd

Case Summary

The claimant brought an unfair dismissal claim on 4 June 2024, which was outside the primary three-month time limit from his effective date of termination on 24 February 2025. The tribunal conducted a preliminary hearing to determine whether it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have submitted his claim within the primary time limit. The tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable and dismissed the claim.

The tribunal found that the claimant failed to establish that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the three-month primary time limit. Although the claimant misinterpreted an ACAS officer's email regarding '2 years' as meaning he had two years to bring a claim, this did not render it not reasonably practicable for him to have submitted the claim on time.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Whether claim was submitted within primary time limit under s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
• •Whether it was reasonably practicable to submit claim within time limit
• •Interpretation of ACAS officer's email regarding '2 years' timeframe

Case No: 6033257/2025 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr V D Udila Respondent: Bylor Services Limited Heard at: London South Employment Tribunal via Video hearing On: 26 March 2026 Before: Employment Judge Youngs Representation Claimant: In person Respondent: Ms L Iqbal, counsel PRELIMINARY HEARING RESERVED JUDGMENT 1. The correct name of the Respondent is “Bylor Services Limited”. 2. The Claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal was not presented within the applicable time limit. It was reasonably practicable to do so. The Claimant’s claim is therefore dismissed. REASONS Claims and parties 1) By a Claim Form dated on 4 June 2024, the Claimant brings a claim for unfair dismissal. That claim was, on the face of it, submitted outside of the primary time limit, and therefore a hearing was listed to consider whether the primary time should be extended. The Respondent was served with the Claim, but not required to respond at this time. Procedure, documents and evidence heard 2) The hearing was held by video hearing. 3) I had before me a Bundle of Documents submitted by the Respondent, running to 91 pages. This included the Claimant’s witness statement. 4) At the start of the hearing I explained that the issues I would be considering and the process Case No: 6033257/2025 that we would follow. 5) The Claimant represented himself and gave witness evidence on his own behalf. He had prepared a witness statement, which was read and taken into account. The Claimant was assisted by an Interpreter. The Respondent was represented by Ms Iqbal of Counsel. 6) The Claimant was cross examined by Ms Iqbal. The questions asked focused on the timing of the submission of the…