How can we help?


Does the six year limitation period for breach of contract apply in tribunals?

The law: Under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994 (“the Order”) an employment tribunal may hear a breach of contract claim from an employee if it is one that ‘a court in England and Wales would under the law for the time being in force have jurisdiction to hear and determine’ and it arises or is outstanding on termination of the employee’s employment.

There are some exceptions to this, for example, breach of contract claims based on intellectual property terms can only be heard in the civil courts.

Save for limited exceptions, the Order states that claims for breach of contract in the employment tribunal must be presented:

  • Within three months beginning with the effective date of termination of the contract giving rise to the claim, or
  • Where there is no effective date of termination, within three months beginning with the last day on which the employee worked in the employment which has terminated

The law governing breach of contract claims in the civil courts states that a breach of contract claim must be bought within six years from the date of the breach.

It is clear from these figures that a large number of employees are misusing company email accounts.

The cases: Two years ago the employment tribunal in Taylor v Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust held that a breach of contract claim in an employment tribunal had to be bought within the timeframe specified in the Order AND within the six year restriction applied in civil cases.  Tribunals would not, therefore, be permitted to hear claims relating to breaches more than six years old.  The tribunal felt that this was in keeping with the purpose of the Order (to allow tribunals to hear breach of contract claims) and with the requirement that such claims could only be heard if a court in England and Wales would have jurisdiction to hear them.  The tribunal referred to Parliamentary debates from the time which it felt made clear that Parliament’s intention was to confer concurrent rights on the tribunals and not to extend the rights of employees.

However, a different employment tribunal in Grisanti v NBC News Worldwide Inc has recently declined to follow this decision ruling that the six year limit does not apply in employment tribunal claims.  It felt that applying this limit may prevent employees from bringing claims under the Order as employees are unable to commence proceedings until their employment has ended by which time the six year limit may have been reached.  It said this would be an odd result given that the purpose of the Order was to ‘extend’ jurisdiction.  In relation to the comment made in Taylor that claims could only be bought if they were within the jurisdiction of the courts, the tribunal felt that the claims would remain within the courts’ jurisdiction even after the six year limit.  It said that the six year limit is a ‘procedural issue’ for the courts not a jurisdictional one and that there are also some narrow exceptions to its application, both of which mean that the courts have jurisdiction to hear breach of contract claims outside of the six year limit.

The difference between the cases relates largely to different understandings of Parliament’s intention when enacting the Order – was it simply to extend tribunals’ jurisdiction to allow them to hear breach of contract claims or was it to go a step further in giving tribunals greater powers than the courts in this regard?  The tribunal in Grisanti suggested that it was the latter and that the Order can, therefore, be more appropriate in employment relationships where employees are ‘notoriously and understandably unwilling to litigate whilst still employed’ and problems do not always come to light until the end of employment.

Both judgments certainly raise some interesting and persuasive points but unfortunately both were only first instance decisions and as such do not bind other tribunals.  Until there is a binding appellate decision the law will remain unclear on this point.

About this article

This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

  • 22 February 2024
  • Employment

Time to take the heat off menopausal women

On 22 February 2024, the EHRC released guidance and resources for employers designed to help employers understand their legal obligations in relation to supporting workers experiencing menopausal symptoms.

  • 22 February 2024
  • Employment

Talking Employment Law: What to do if you’re at risk of redundancy

In this podcast, Harry Berryman and Rebecca Dowle, members of the employment team, will talk through the steps that need to be taken for a redundancy to be fair and the range of criteria that can be used when determining which employees will be made redundant.

  • 12 February 2024
  • Employment

The World of Work in 2024- What Can HR Expect?

In many senses, 2024 is unlikely to be a year with radical ruptures from those that have gone before it. The significance of 2024 though, is that it is likely to build upon those megatrends impacting the world of work, which have been emerging for some time now and are only likely to strengthen as we move on in time.

  • 30 January 2024
  • Employment

Large-scale Redundancies – What to expect as an employee

In today’s uncertain economic environment, it is rare to see a week go by without a major employer announcing redundancies, be they as a result of a restructuring, a contracting business or a merger or acquisition.

  • 23 January 2024
  • Employment

Navigating Redundancy: Top Tips for Employers Considering Redundancies

Redundancy law in the UK can be tricky to get right. With that in mind, here are our top tips for employers who are considering making redundancies.

  • 17 January 2024
  • Employment

The Post Office Scandal Calls for HR Caution

This article will focus on what went wrong in the Post Office Scandal and what  human resource professionals (HR) might learn from  the Post Office’s failings.