News Feed
The Supreme Court has handed down its decision in the case of Gisada Syf v Barratt.
Mrs. Syf was dismissed by letter, which was sent to her by recorded delivery, and signed for by her son on 30 November 2008. Although she was expecting the decision letter to arrive, she had gone away for a few days. As a result of this, she did not open the letter and find out that she was dismissed until 4 December.
She submitted a claim on 2 March, which if the effective date of termination was 30 November, her unfair dismissal claim was out of time. If however, the effective date of termination was 4 December, then her claim was presented in time.
The Supreme Court held that the effective date of termination was 4 December, i.e. when she actually read the letter and as such, her claim was made in time.
The Court held that Mrs. Syf should not be criticized for wanting the letter to remain unopened until her return, rather than having her son open it and read it to her, as the contents were private. As she did not know of the decision until 4 December, not had she deliberately avoided opening the letter until that date, the effective date of termination should be the date on which she learned that she had been dismissed.
The Court said that on policy grounds it was preferable to interpret the legislation in relation to limitation periods in a way that was favourable to employees, and that strict contractual laws concerning the termination of contracts should not displace the statutory framework.
Accordingly, Mrs. Syf’s case was presented in time, and her claim was allowed to proceed.
