Case 1403267/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Attempted but Unable to Attend (In person) For the v Respondent — 2024

Case reference: 1403267/2023
Decision date: 15 January 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Attempted but Unable to Attend (In person) For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant, Mr Michael Hawkins, was employed by Dorset Council as an Estate Officer until dismissal by reason of redundancy effective on 5 October 2021. A preliminary hearing was held remotely on 2 January 2024 to determine time limits. The tribunal recorded that the redundancy figure in dispute was £2,932.54 and that the claimant had not exercised an internal appeal, despite having trade union support.

For the unfair dismissal complaint, the tribunal applied the section 111(2) ERA 1996 time limit and the Early Conciliation 'stop the clock' provisions in section 207B. It found that the ordinary three-month time limit expired on 4 January 2022, was extended by Early Conciliation to 31 January 2022, and that the ET1 presented on 1 May 2023 was about 15 months late. The claimant's evidence was that he delayed because he hoped the matter might be resolved without tribunal proceedings, but the tribunal held that this did not make it not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and that there was no adequate explanation for the further delay after 31 January 2022.

The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint as out of time. It also noted that the claimant had access to advice and support from his trade union and was aware of the relevant process because he had already started Early Conciliation. The tribunal referred to authorities including Palmer and Saunders, Wall's Meat, Porter, London Underground v Noel, London International College v Sen, and Cullinane when setting out the applicable approach to limitation and to the requirement that any later presentation must also be within a reasonable period.

On the redundancy payment issue, the tribunal held that section 164(1)(b) ERA 1996 did not require tribunal proceedings to be issued within six months where a written claim for payment had been made to the employer. Applying Bentley Engineering and Price v Smithfield and Zwanenberg Group Ltd, it found that the claimant's 23 November 2021 email, headed 'Redundancy Pay' and asking the council to 'review issuing the redundancy payment', was sufficient written notice of a claim. The tribunal therefore allowed the redundancy payment claim to proceed to a further hearing, but did not make any final merits decision on entitlement in this judgment.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal held this complaint was presented out of time. The effective date of termination was 5 October 2021; after Early Conciliation the limitation date was extended to 31 January 2022, but the claim was not presented until 1 May 2023. The tribunal rejected the claimant's explanation that he was waiting in the hope of settlement and found it was reasonably practicable to have presented the claim in time.	Dismissed	—	—
Redundancy	The tribunal rejected the limitation objection and held that the claimant's email of 23 November 2021 headed 'Redundancy Pay' was a written claim for a redundancy payment within s.164(1)(b) ERA 1996. The judgment did not finally decide entitlement or the amount; it stated that the claim would proceed to a hearing.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

14 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.