Case 1401276/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Holly (non-legal representative) For the v Ms Osman (solicitor) — 2019
- Case reference
- 1401276/2019
- Decision date
- 5 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Rourke Representation
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Holly (non-legal representative) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant had worked for BT Openreach Limited as a field engineer for about twenty years and was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct on 17 December 2018. He presented an unfair dismissal claim on 15 April 2019, which was 30 days after the statutory deadline of 16 March 2019. The respondent argued that the tribunal had no jurisdiction because the claim was out of time. The claimant relied on s.111(2) ERA 1996, saying it was not reasonably practicable to bring the claim sooner because he had been awaiting the outcome of an internal appeal, had been poorly advised by his trade union representative, and was affected by depression and possible PTSD.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out for want of jurisdiction because the claim was presented 30 days out of time and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it within the statutory time limit. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- Dedman v British Building & Engineering Appliances Limited [1974] ICR 53 CA
- Trevelyans (Birmingham) Limited v Norton [1991] ICR 488 EAT
- Friend v Institution of Professional Managers and Specialists [1999] IRLR 173 QBD
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.