Case 1400519/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Sanders v Hobbs Reprographics plc — 2019
- Case reference
- 1400519/2019
- Decision date
- 1 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Sanders
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim presented on 14 February 2019 was initially rejected under rule 12(2) because it did not contain an accurate early conciliation number required by rule 10(1)(c). The claimant’s request for reconsideration was then accepted under rule 13(4) after the original defect was rectified, and the date of presentation of the claim was treated as 1 August 2019.
The tribunal held that the claim was presented outside the time limit, even allowing for any extension under the early conciliation provisions. It found that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within time and therefore concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim.
The claim was accordingly dismissed. No substantive findings were made on the underlying employment issues, and no monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal did not reach the merits of any substantive claim. It accepted reconsideration of an earlier rejection of the ET1, but then held the claim was presented outside the time limit and that it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time, so it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.