Case 1308852/2019 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1308852/2019
- Decision date
- 18 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dean Note
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Dean sitting alone on 18 August 2020. The Tribunal considered the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint and held that it had been presented outside the primary limitation period in section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for Ms Branton to present the unfair dismissal claim in time. It also found that, even if it had not been reasonably practicable, the claim was not presented within such further period as was reasonable. The Tribunal therefore held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint and dismissed that complaint.
The judgment records that the claimant's remaining complaint for a redundancy payment was unaffected by the decision and continued. No monetary award was made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Tribunal held the claim was presented outside the primary limitation period in s111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996; it found it was reasonably practicable to present in time and, even if not, the complaint was not brought within such further period as was reasonable. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s111(2) ERA 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.