Case 1400804/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Stubbs (in person) For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1400804/2021
- Decision date
- 13 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr N Stubbs (in person) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Stubbs started work for The Lucky Onion LLP in July 2018 and resigned in November 2018. For the preliminary hearing the effective date of termination was treated as 21 November 2018. He notified ACAS on 6 August 2020, received a certificate on 10 August 2020, and presented his tribunal claim on 11 February 2021.
On the unfair dismissal complaint, the tribunal held that the claim should have been presented by 20 February 2019, subject to the ACAS pause, and that it was reasonably practicable for Mr Stubbs to have brought it in time. The judge accepted that he was socially isolated and later had periods without fixed accommodation, but found that by June 2020 he knew he could bring a claim on a whistleblowing basis, knew about ACAS and the three-month limit, and could have notified ACAS then. Because he did not do so until August 2020, and did not present the claim until February 2021, the tribunal held that the claim was still out of time and that it had no jurisdiction.
The breach of contract claim was also struck out on time-limit grounds. The tribunal found that Mr Stubbs believed there had been a breach when he left the Respondent's employment, that he had access to the internet throughout, and that it was reasonably feasible for him to have made enquiries and presented the claim earlier. Separately, and only on the question of prospects of success, the tribunal said the alleged protected disclosure concerned an alleged breach of the claimant's own contract and was therefore personal in nature, that the whistleblowing case had little reasonable prospect of success, and that causation was also weak. The judge said that if a deposit order had been needed on the unfair dismissal allegation, it would have been set at £10, but no deposit order was made because the claims were struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Presented out of time. The claimant argued that he fell within the whistleblowing exception to the two-year service rule under s.103A ERA 1996, but the tribunal held it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and struck it out for lack of jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Presented out of time under the Extension of Jurisdiction Order. The tribunal held it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and struck it out for lack of jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
17 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996 reasonably practicable test
- Regulation 7 of the Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction England and Wales) Order 1994
- s.207B ERA 1996 early conciliation extension
- Wall's Meat Co v Khan
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Wolverhampton University v Elbeltagi
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea BC
- John Lewis Partnership v Charman
- London Underground Ltd v Noel
- Rule 37 strike out test
- Rule 39 deposit order test
- s.43B ERA 1996 public interest test
- Babula v Waltham Forest College
- Korashi v Abertawe University Local Health Board
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- Cox v Adecco
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.