Case 1307014/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Connor v Wolverhampton City Council — 2022
- Case reference
- 1307014/2020
- Decision date
- 11 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kelly
- Venue
- Midlands West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Connor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard a preliminary jurisdiction issue on the claimant's claims for unfair dismissal, deduction from wages and breach of contract. It found that the claimant's employment ended on 19 December 2019, so the primary time limit for the unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims expired on 18 March 2020, and the wages claim time limit expired at the latest on 30 March 2020. The claimant did not start ACAS early conciliation until 1 April 2020 and did not present his tribunal claim until 12 August 2020.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that it was not reasonably practicable to act in time. It found that during the relevant period he was able, with assistance, to prepare for and conduct a judicial review hearing on 19 March 2020, and that the focus on that JR was a decision to prioritise it over his tribunal claims. It also noted that early conciliation is not an onerous process, that no medical evidence supported the asserted severity of the claimant's anxiety and depression, and that there was no evidence he was unable to present the claim by 13 June 2020.
The tribunal therefore held that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have contacted ACAS and presented the tribunal claim within time, and dismissed the claimant's claims as out of time. It also ordered the claimant to pay the respondent £140.13 on the respondent's counterclaim, because the claimant failed to respond to it.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claim was presented out of time and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to contact ACAS and present the claim within the primary time limit under s.111(2) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the wages claim was presented out of time; the tribunal applied the same early conciliation and limitation provisions and found no basis to extend time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed because the claim was presented out of time and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to bring it within the relevant limitation period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Respondent's counterclaim; the claimant failed to respond and was ordered to pay £140.13. | Upheld | — | £140 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £140
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- s.207B ERA 1996
- s.18A Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
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.