Case 1306332/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v Mr. Bownes, solicitor — 2024
- Case reference
- 1306332/2023
- Decision date
- 30 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wedderspoon Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a complaint of unfair dismissal after his employment with DPD Group UK Limited ended in March 2022. The hearing considered whether it had not been reasonably practicable for him to present the claim within the primary time limit and, if so, whether it was presented within a further reasonable period.
The Tribunal found that the claimant knew shortly after dismissal that his employment had ended, had internet access, and accepted that his wrist injury did not prevent him from researching his employment rights. It also found that he had been aware of Citizens Advice but did not rearrange contact after a missed opportunity.
The Tribunal concluded that the claimant had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to lodge the claim in time. It therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim and dismissed it.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction because the unfair dismissal claim was presented out of time and the claimant had not shown it was not reasonably practicable to lodge it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- Palmer and another v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
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.