Case 1403433/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Cutter v Somerset County Council — 2019
- Case reference
- 1403433/2019
- Decision date
- 22 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Bax Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Cutter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr D Cutter brought claims against Somerset County Council for breach of contract and unfair dismissal. At the Bristol Employment Tribunal hearing on 22 November 2019, the breach of contract claim was recorded as dismissed upon the Claimant's withdrawal of it.
The unfair dismissal claim was not determined on its merits. The Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear that claim because it had been presented out of time, and the claim should have been presented when it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant to do so.
No financial award was made. The written record states that the reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested in accordance with the Tribunal's notice.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the breach of contract claim was dismissed upon its withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim because it was presented out of time when it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant to have presented it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- reasonably practicable
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.