Case 1402734/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. D. Barnes v S. J. Norman & Sons — 2022
- Case reference
- 1402734/2021
- Decision date
- 9 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G. King Representation
- Venue
- Bristol ET via VHS
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. D. Barnes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 1 September 2022 before Employment Judge G. King, the tribunal dealt with limitation and jurisdiction issues. It held that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim and breach of contract claim for notice pay had been submitted out of time, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them and both were dismissed on that basis.
The tribunal found that the redundancy payment claim had been submitted within time and that it did have jurisdiction to hear that claim. The written judgment does not record any merits determination or monetary award for the redundancy payment claim.
The claimant's application for the respondent's ET3 and grounds of resistance to be struck out was refused. The judgment notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Presented out of time; the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim presented out of time; the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Claim was found to have been presented within time and the tribunal held it had jurisdiction to hear it; the written judgment does not record a merits outcome. | Other | — | — |
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.