Case 1300243/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Dabbs v Walsall NHS Trust — 2020
- Case reference
- 1300243/2020
- Decision date
- 22 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dimbylow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Dabbs
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal granted the claimant's application to amend his claim form to include constructive unfair dismissal, finding that amendment just, fair and proportionate. It found that the claimant's employment ended when his resignation letter, delivered on 27 August 2019, was opened by the respondent on 30 August 2019, and therefore the effective date of termination was 30 August 2019.
The claim form was presented on 18 January 2020. On that basis, the tribunal held that both the unfair dismissal claim and the constructive unfair dismissal claim were out of time. The claimant did not satisfy the tribunal that it was not reasonably practicable to present the complaint within the three-month period from the effective date of termination, and the tribunal did not extend time.
Because time was not extended, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear either claim and both were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the unfair dismissal claim was presented out of time after the effective date of termination was found to be 30 August 2019, and it declined to extend time because the claimant did not show that it was not reasonably practicable to present the complaint earlier. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal granted amendment to add a constructive unfair dismissal claim, but held that claim was also out of time and dismissed it for the same limitation reason. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- reasonably practicable test
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.