Mr G Uppal v Fortel Services Ltd and 1 other — 2024

The tribunal read the unrepresented claimant's ET1 fairly and non-technically. Although he had not ticked the boxes for unfair dismissal or redundancy pay, the judge held that the written particulars were, in substance, complaints that Fortel had "got rid of" him by moving him to HRAI without notice or paperwork and then ending the arrangement when there was no work. The judge therefore found that claims for unfair dismissal and a redundancy payment were already included in the claim form.

The hearing was limited to preliminary issues, including strike out. The judge did not make findings of fact about the disputed resignation letter dated 28 October 2022, what the claimant was told in January 2023, or whether the transfer between Fortel and HRAI was genuine. Those matters were left for any final hearing. On the limitation issue, the judge accepted that if the claimant's employment had ended on 4 January 2023, the unfair dismissal and redundancy pay claims would be out of time against Fortel on the dates discussed in the reasons.

The judge nonetheless refused to strike out the claims. Relying on sections 218 and 231 ERA 1996, he noted the claimant's case that he had been told he was being transferred, that the companies were connected, that he continued dealing with the same people, and that he believed his employment was ongoing. On that basis, the tribunal was not persuaded that he had no reasonable prospect of showing that the claims were in time or that it was not reasonably practicable to present them earlier. The ruling was limited to allowing the unfair dismissal and redundancy pay claims to proceed.