Case 1300442/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Singh v DPD Group UK Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1300442/2020
- Decision date
- 18 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Connolly
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Singh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was summarily dismissed on 4 November 2019 and brought an unfair dismissal claim. An earlier claim was rejected because it did not include an Acas early conciliation number. The current claim was presented on 22 May 2020 after early conciliation, and the claimant did not dispute that it was 7 weeks and 6 days out of time.
The tribunal found that the claimant was likely aware of his right to bring a claim and that time limits applied by the end of the internal appeal process at the latest. It accepted that the claimant faced a language barrier and that travel and Covid-19 restrictions made matters more complex, but found there were steps he could reasonably have taken, including resolving the Acas number issue before travel or arranging for post to be opened and acted on while he was abroad.
The tribunal concluded that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the claim within the relevant time limit. It also stated that, even if that had not been so, the claim was not presented within a reasonable period thereafter. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The preliminary hearing determined that the unfair dismissal claim was presented outside the statutory time limit and that it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan UKEAT/0305/13
- Wall's Meat Company Limited v Khan 1979 ICR 52
- reasonably practicable
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.