Case 1309221/2019 · Employment Tribunal
No Attendance For the First v Mr B Jones - Counsel — 2020
- Case reference
- 1309221/2019
- Decision date
- 11 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self
Parties
2 namedClaimant
No Attendance For the First
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that Ms S Elson's unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, arrears of wages and discrimination claims had been presented outside the statutory time limit. For the unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and arrears of wages claims, the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claims to have been lodged in time.
For the discrimination claim(s), the Tribunal found that it would not be just and equitable to extend time. On that basis, all of the claims were dismissed on the ground that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider them.
No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claim was lodged outside the statutory time limit and the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for it to have been lodged in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed because the claim was lodged outside the statutory time limit and the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for it to have been lodged in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to 'arrears of wages'; this claim was dismissed as out of time because it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been lodged in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refers to 'Discrimination claims' without identifying the specific type or protected characteristic. The Tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time and dismissed the claim(s) for want of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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.