Case 1304394/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Wilf Sullivan, Board member — 2024
- Case reference
- 1304394/2023
- Decision date
- 21 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Mirza brought an unfair dismissal claim after his employment ended on 31 January 2023 by reason of redundancy. The hearing concerned whether the claim should be dismissed because it had been filed outside the statutory time limit.
The tribunal found it was not reasonably practicable for Mr Mirza to present the claim before 5 April 2023, when he saw an advert for a similar role and checked the funder's website. However, he did not approach Acas until 19 May 2023, about six weeks later, and the tribunal found that was not a reasonable further period.
The tribunal dismissed the claim as out of time. It added that, if the claim had not been dismissed on that basis, it would have been struck out because there was no reason to doubt the Respondent's evidence that it did not know before the employment ended that further funding had been successful in principle.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was dismissed as filed out of time. The judge also stated that, if not dismissed for time, it would have been struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- range of reasonable responses
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.