Case 1306841/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N McDermott v Saint-Gobain Building Distribution trading as Jewson Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1306841/2020
- Decision date
- 20 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Choudry
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N McDermott
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on whether Mr McDermott’s unfair dismissal claim was in time. The tribunal found that the effective date of termination was 27 February 2020, so the normal three-month deadline expired on 26 May 2020. Early Conciliation ran from 23 April 2020 to 23 May 2020, which extended the limitation period to 25 June 2020. The claim form was not received until 2 July 2020, so it was out of time.
The tribunal then considered whether it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time under section 111(2)(b) ERA 1996. It accepted that the claimant had been advised by the Citizens Advice Bureau and the Job Centre about time limits, and that he had also contacted ACAS. Although he said he lacked personal computer access, the tribunal found he had support and access to a computer via his step-father and did not take proactive steps to check the deadline despite knowing a time limit existed.
The tribunal referred to section 111 ERA 1996, section 207B ERA 1996, and the authorities in Marks & Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan, Bodhu v Hampshire Area Health Authority, and Palmer v Southend on Sea Borough Council. It concluded that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the claim in time, so the tribunal did not have jurisdiction and the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed at a preliminary hearing because the claim was presented outside the statutory time limit and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 111(2)(a) ERA 1996
- section 111(2)(b) ERA 1996
- section 207B ERA 1996
- Marks & Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan
- Bodhu v Hampshire Area Health Authority
- Palmer v Southend on Sea Borough Council
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.