Case 1400950/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jose Fonseca v Pilgrim’s Pride Limited (previously Tulip Limited) — 2021
- Case reference
- 1400950/2021
- Decision date
- 22 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Cadney Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Jose Fonseca
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with two linked claim numbers at a preliminary hearing on 9 September 2021. It held that claim 1400986/2021, which had been put right only after an initial form error, was presented out of time because the corrected claim was deemed submitted on 23 March 2021, after the extended limitation date of 28 February 2021. Applying the reasonably practicable test and the Dedman principle, the judge found it had been reasonably practicable for the solicitor to present the claim correctly and in time, so the claim was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.
The dismissed claim number 1400986/2021 had included claims for public interest disclosure detriment and automatically unfair dismissal under s103A ERA 1996. The tribunal recorded that dismissal on time-limit grounds did not involve any assessment of the merits. It also said the claimant could seek to amend the live proceedings to include those allegations, but only if he supplied further and better particulars of the disclosures relied on, including when and to whom they were made, what was disclosed, and why he said they were in the public interest.
By contrast, claim 1400950/2021 was accepted as having been presented in time on 24 February 2021 and was allowed to proceed to hearing. The tribunal said that claim appeared to include ordinary unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal, and it directed the claimant to confirm whether he was also bringing an automatically unfair dismissal claim under s100 ERA 1996 and, if so, under which subsection. Further directions were made for particulars and for any amendment application, but no merits decision or remedy was made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed on a jurisdictional time-limit basis after the tribunal held the claim was presented out of time; the merits were not considered. The claimant was given directions for any proposed amendment to plead protected disclosures with further and better particulars. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claim form described this as an automatically unfair dismissal claim under s103A ERA 1996. It was dismissed together with the whistleblowing claim because the separate claim number was presented out of time; the merits were not determined. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable test
- Dedman principle
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.