Case 1401860/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Mashingo v Best Time Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1401860/2022
- Decision date
- 18 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Representation
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Mashingo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Mashingo did not attend the hearing before Employment Judge Rayner at Southampton on 27 July 2023. The tribunal considered her claims of unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal contrary to section 103A ERA, wrongful dismissal, and unpaid holiday pay.
The tribunal found that each claim had not been presented within the statutory time limit under section 111 and/or section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have filed each claim within time.
As a result, the tribunal held that each of the claims was struck out for want of jurisdiction. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the claim was not brought within the section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996 time limit and struck it out for want of jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996 was found to be out of time and struck out for want of jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held the claim was not brought within the applicable time limit and struck it out for want of jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The unpaid holiday pay claim was found to be out of time under section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996 and struck out for want of jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable test
- s.103A ERA 1996
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.