Case 1303368/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mr E Gould (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2019

Case reference: 1303368/2018
Decision date: 25 April 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Findlay

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Mr E Gould (Counsel) For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Gaskell about whether the claimant could amend case 1303368/2018 to add unfair dismissal and whether the separately presented case 1303438/2018 was in time. Mr Simon Withington had been employed by Desmi Limited from 16 March 1991 until dismissal on 9 March 2018, with redundancy given as the reason at the time. The first ET1, presented on 4 July 2018, pleaded unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract; on 10 July 2018 the claimant sought to add unfair dismissal, and that same day presented the second ET1.

The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant, his wife, and the respondent's managing director. It accepted that the witnesses were honest, but considered Mr White's evidence of limited value because he was relaying what a colleague said and the colleague did not attend to give direct evidence. The tribunal did not need to resolve every detail of the 9 July 2018 restaurant conversation; what mattered was that it led the claimant and his wife to check the respondent's website and LinkedIn that evening, where they found information about Mr Collins described as a Business Development Manager (Defence and Fuel).

Applying s.111(2) ERA 1996 and the authorities it cited on reasonably practicable time limits and late-acquired factual knowledge, the tribunal found that the claimant had no reason to investigate the respondent's recruitment before 9 July 2018, that the online information was reasonably acquired, and that it was crucial to his decision to pursue an unfair dismissal claim. It therefore held that the unfair dismissal complaint was not reasonably practicable to present before 9 July 2018 and was presented the next day, so the tribunal had jurisdiction over the second claim. Applying Selkent, it also allowed the amendment to the first claim because the application was prompt, made before service, and the time point was no obstacle.

The judgment did not determine the merits of the unfair dismissal claim or the unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract claims, and no remedy award was made at this stage.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Permission was granted to amend case 1303368/2018 to add unfair dismissal. The tribunal held that, because of later-acquired factual knowledge, it was not reasonably practicable to present the complaint before 9 July 2018 and the amendment point was no obstacle.	Other	—	—
Unfair dismissal	Case 1303438/2018, presented on 10 July 2018, was held to be in time under s.111(2)(b) ERA 1996 because the claimant satisfied the not reasonably practicable test.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.