Time Limits in the EET – update on recent case-law

Unfair dismissal

In Isle of Man unfair dismissal cases, the statutory time limit to bring an EET complaint is: “3 months beginning with the effective date of termination” (s 133(2)(a) Employment Act 2006) (“effective date of termination” being defined in ss 112(4)-(7)). But what if the complaint is filed late?

Under s 133(2)(c), a complaint may be presented: “… within such further period as the Tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of the period stated in paragraph (a)… “.

Recently in Nikolchev v Department of Infrastructure (25-72) (10.12.25), Chairman Douglas Stewart disallowed a complaint based on, at least, unfair dismissal, to proceed. It had been filed 10 days late. He held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction and gave guidance on its approach:

“11. There are two legs to the statutory approach. The first leg requires Mr Nikolchev to establish that it was not reasonably practicable (reasonably feasible) throughout the three-month period to have presented the Complaint in time. Only if he has established that it was not reasonably practicable does the Tribunal go on to consider whether the Complaint had been presented within a reasonable time thereafter.

12. Having failed to satisfy me that it was not reasonably practicable (reasonably feasible) for the Complaint to be presented within the time-limit, there is no need for me to consider the second leg of the approach.

13. This Tribunal has consistently applied its approach… . One of many examples of the consistent approach was in my prior decision in Whelan v Department of Health and Social Care (17/41) where I made this observation: “Even if the Claimant is only one day late, if it was reasonably practicable to lodge the Claim within the three-month period, the law is against admitting such a Claim to proceed. However, there can be situations where, when it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within a 3 month period, a much longer delay may not prevent a Claim from being accepted. Each case turns on its own facts.”

14. … [In] Beasley v National Grid (2008) EWCA Civ 742…, the Complaint had been submitted just 88 seconds late and was ruled as being out of time – this despite technical issues. The approach of the Court of Appeal was to observe that the statute (similar to the Employment Act 2006) imposed a harsh regime. Either a Complaint was in time or it was not.

15. The Court of Appeal confirmed there was no grey area for Complaints that were only a little out of time. Complaints had to be presented within the time limit unless the Complainant could show that it was not reasonably practicable to do so. What was reasonably practicable was pre-eminently a question of fact for the Tribunal. It was seldom that an appeal would lie from such a decision. Moreover, if an application was left until the last minute, then the breakdown or failure of a piece of office equipment was a risk that had to be taken into account by the person making the application.

16. If a Complaint is not presented in time, then the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to advance it…”.

What if there are said to be new facts, prompting the out of time complaint? In Bridson v Heron & Brearley (14.51) (28.11.14), Chairman Stewart applied the English Court of Appeal decision in Stewart Machine Tool Industry Research Association v Simpson (1988) ICR 558 CA. The Court of Appeal held in Simpson that where new facts underpin a request to proceed out of time, the Claimant must establish three points: “• That her ignorance of the facts relied on was reasonable and • That she had reasonably gained knowledge outside the time limit that she reasonably and genuinely believed to be crucial to the case and to amount to grounds for an application and • That the acquisition of the knowledge was in fact crucial to the decision to bring the claim.” 

Allowing late complaints to proceed is quite rare. A late constructive dismissal complaint was allowed to proceed in: Fargher v DHSC (17/44) (11.10.17) but recently disallowed to proceed in: Moore v DESC (25/43) (14.07.25). The complaint was found, on the facts, to be in time in Jones v Manx Utility Authority (18/27) (05.11.18).

Unlawful deduction of wages

In Isle of Man unlawful deduction of wages cases, the time limit to file a complaint is: “3 months beginning with – (a) … the date of payment of wages from which the deduction was made… or within such further period as the Tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented within the relevant period of 3 months” (s 25(2) Employment Act 2006).

In Drinkwater v Department of Infrastructure (2025-033) (04.08.25), Deputy Chairperson John Wright dealt with a 54-day delay. He held (disallowing the late complaint to proceed):

“6. For me to determine whether or not the Complaint is brought within time, and, if not, whether I should exercise my discretion it is necessary for me to examine the timeline and attempt to understand the [basis] of the claim. However that is not a detailed examination of the merits of the Complaint…

17. Both parties referred me to the case of Bridson v Heron & Brearley E&ET 14/51. That is a case about time limits in which to bring a claim for unfair dismissal. I agree that case is of general application to the consideration of the exercise of discretion by a Tribunal, in a case examining late lodging and extension of time.

18. The burden of satisfying me is on the Complainant. The words not reasonably practicable are regarded by the E&ET as meaning “not reasonably feasible”. Tribunals have consistently decided that this constitutes a high threshold and is not to be applied to cases of mere administrative delay or pursuit of internal processes.”

Whistleblowing

In Isle of Man whistleblowing cases, the filing deadline is:“3 months beginning with the date of the act or failure to act to which the complaint relates or, where that act or failure is part of a
series of similar acts or failures, the last of them” (s 71(4)(a) Employment Act 2006). This time limit can be extended to: “such further period as the Tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of that period of 3 months“ (s 71(4)(c) Employment Act 2006).

A complaint of detriment following protected disclosures was disallowed to proceed in Maddrell v Southern Civic Amenity Site Board (23/52) (10.10.23) (see also below).

[Updated 19.09.26] The filing deadline for an interim relief application in whistleblowing cases is within 7 days of dismissal: s 118A Employment Act 2006 (see also below).

Sex discrimination

In Isle of Man sex discrimination cases, s 113(1) Equality Act 2017 requires complaints to be filed within: “(i)… 3 months starting with the date of the act to which the complaint relates, or (ii) such other period as the Tribunal thinks just and equitable”. 

Cases in which permission to raise or add allegations of sex discrimination out of time were disallowed to proceed were: Best v Chief Constable & another (17/06) (24.03.17) and Christian v Cavendish Trust Co. Ltd (18/59) (25.03.19). An allegation of detriment following sex discrimination was allowed to proceed under three weeks out of time in Maddrell v Southern Civic Amenity Site Board (23/52) (10.10.23). Setting out guidance in Maddrell, Chairman Stewart held:

“47. The burden of proof to achieve the extension was on the Complainant. While the Tribunal’s discretion is wide, granting an extension has to be reasoned and is not to be regarded as the norm. The discretion available to the Tribunal when considering extending time in discrimination cases is wider than for whistleblowing. Different statutory provisions apply. For discrimination relating to sex and sexual orientation, the Tribunal can extend the time for lodging if it is just and equitable to do so. For whistleblowing the robust test is whether it was reasonably practicable to have lodged the allegation in time.

48. … determining what is just and equitable… involves consideration of all the circumstances (Hutchison v Westward Television [(1977 ICR 279)]. … whereas incorrect advice by a solicitor or a wholly understandable misconception of the law would be unlikely to save a late Tribunal application in an unfair dismissal case, the same is not necessarily true when the claim is based on discrimination. Authorities cited are Hawkins v Cole [(1996) IRLR 258 EAT] and British [Coal] v Keeble [(1997] IRLR 336].

49. In British Coal v Keeble…, Mrs Justice Smith in the Employment Appeal Tribunal laid down five criteria when considering what may be just and equitable… :

(a) The length of and reasons for the delay;
(b) The extent to which the cogency of the evidence is likely to be affected by the delay;
(c) The extent to which the party sued had co-operated with any requests for information.
(d) The promptness with which the [Complainant] acted once he or she knew of the facts giving rise to the cause of action.
(e) The steps taken by the [Complainant] to obtain appropriate professional advice once he or she knew of the possibility of taking action.”

Note for practitioners: The Tribunal’s recent reference to a mere 88-second delay in filing (in the English case of Beasley v National Grid) is a salutary reminder to Complainants considering filing unfair dismissal complaints: time really is of the essence.

[Update 04.02.26] The Tribunal has once again confirmed its strict approach to time limits in unfair dismissal cases, in Brew v MUA (25-86) (02.02.26).

[Update 19.09.26] See also Coren Law, EET: interim relief whistleblowing change “may create a perfect storm” (19.09.26)

Disclaimer: professional advice should be sought before applying any information in a given case.

For advice on Isle of Man employment and equality law, contact Coren Law.

See also Coren Law’s Isle of Man civil procedure portal: Click On | Coren Law.