Case 1300223/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr A Joicey – Non-legal in house adviser — 2022
- Case reference
- 1300223/2021
- Decision date
- 8 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Choudry
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed on 24 August 2020 and brought claims following that dismissal. An earlier judgment on 29 September 2021 had struck out the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant did not have sufficient service. He applied for reconsideration by letter dated 22 October 2021, and the tribunal heard evidence from him at the March 2022 hearing with an agreed bundle before it.
The tribunal refused reconsideration. It held that the claimant had insufficient continuous service to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim and had not identified any basis for an automatically unfair dismissal claim that would avoid the two-year service requirement. On that basis, the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim.
The tribunal also found that the claims were out of time. It accepted that the effective date of termination was 24 August 2020, that the claimant appealed on 26 August 2020 and attended an appeal hearing on 15 September 2020, and that he started Early Conciliation on 19 January 2021. However, it was not satisfied that waiting for the appeal outcome made it not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, particularly because the claimant did not chase the appeal outcome and had been able to research the time limits, even though he mistakenly thought he had six months to bring a claim.
The claimant's breach of contract/unlawful deduction of wages claim was also dismissed. The claim was clarified as a complaint that he should have been kept on furlough until March 2021 as an alternative to dismissal, and the claimant accepted that he was not owed any monies under his contract of employment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal refused reconsideration of an earlier strike-out for insufficient continuous service and held that the claimant had not shown any basis for an automatically unfair dismissal claim. It also found the claim was presented out of time and that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been brought earlier. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment treated the claimant's other claim as breach of contract/unlawful deduction of wages and held it was presented out of time. The claimant accepted that he was not owed any monies under his contract of employment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 70 reconsideration in the interests of justice
- section 108(1) ERA 1996
- section 111(2) ERA 1996
- section 207B ERA 1996
- Marks & Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan [2005] EWCA Civ 470
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.