Case 1309356/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Ms S Lewis, Solicitor — 2021
- Case reference
- 1309356/2020
- Decision date
- 5 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lloyd Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the open preliminary hearing on 5 February 2021, held remotely by CVP before Employment Judge Lloyd, the tribunal dealt with the claimant’s claims of constructive unfair dismissal and statutory redundancy payment. The respondent was represented by Ms S Lewis, Solicitor, and the claimant appeared in person.
The tribunal struck out and dismissed the constructive unfair dismissal claim because it was presented out of time. It held that the claimant had not discharged the burden of proving that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the prescribed time limit, applying section 111(2)(a) and (b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The statutory redundancy payment claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal also found that the redundancy payment claim did not meet the timeliness provisions in section 164 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
No monetary award was made and no remedy breakdown was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Presented out of time. The tribunal held the claimant had not discharged the burden of showing it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the prescribed time limit, referring to section 111(2)(a) and (b) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out under rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure on the basis that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal also said the redundancy payment claim did not meet the timeliness provisions in section 164 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.111(2)(a) & (b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- s.164 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.