Case 1311239/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Ms A Ost - Solicitor — 2022
- Case reference
- 1311239/2020
- Decision date
- 20 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Choudry
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a constructive unfair dismissal claim following his resignation. The tribunal found that his employment with Worcestershire County Council started on 22 August 2005, based on the respondent's letter of 19 August 2005, and that his resignation letter of 3 December 2005 sought a leaving date of 9 December 2005, but the respondent treated the contractual notice period as ending on 2 January 2006.
On the merits of jurisdiction, the tribunal held that the claimant had less than five months' service at the effective date of termination and so did not satisfy the continuous service requirement in section 108(1) ERA 1996. It also found that none of the exceptions in sections 108(2) to 108(5) applied. The tribunal therefore concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim.
The tribunal further found that the claim was presented far outside the statutory time limit. The claim was issued on 25 November 2020, around 14 years after the effective date of termination, and the ACAS early conciliation period did not extend the claim into time. Applying section 111(2) ERA 1996 and the principles in Marks & Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan, the tribunal found that the claimant had not shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present the complaint in time. It noted that he had pursued appeals in other forums and had the support of his trade union. The claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal described the claim in the background as constructive unfair dismissal following resignation, but determined it as an unfair dismissal jurisdiction and time-limit issue. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.108(1) ERA 1996
- s.108(2)-(5) ERA 1996
- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- s.207B ERA 1996
- Marks & Spencer plc v Williams-Ryan [2005] EWCA Civ 470
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.