The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as an HGV driver from 2006 until his summary dismissal in July 2020 for the stated reason of conduct. Intimation to the decision to dismiss was given in a letter dated 10 July 2020. The Claimant made contact with ACAS on 12 October 2020 and presented a claim form to the ET on 10 December 2020 in which he complained inter alia of unfair dismissal. A preliminary hearing took place before the ET at which the issues were (a) when the dismissal letter was first seen by the Claimant; and (b) time-bar. The ET found that the dismissal letter had been sent by email on 10 July 2020 and had been seen and read by the Claimant by 11 July 2020 at the latest. It accordingly held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claims because they had been presented out of time. The Claimant submitted that (a) there was no evidence to support the ET’s conclusion that the Claimant had seen the dismissal letter by 11 July 2020; and (b) in any event, its findings and conclusions were perverse.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The submission that there was no evidence to support the ET’s conclusion was incorrect. The ET had before it three pieces of circumstantial documentary evidence which entitled it to conclude that the e mail dated 10 July 2020 was indeed sent on the date which it bore. There was also ample circumstantial evidence on which the ET was entitled to conclude that the dismissal letter was seen and read by the Claimant by 11 July 2020 at the latest. The conclusions reached by the ET were open to it on the evidence and were not perverse.