Case 1403706/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Ward (in person) For the v - Ms P Hall (solicitor) — 2024
- Case reference
- 1403706/2023
- Decision date
- 3 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Bax Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Ward (in person) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Bax at Bristol by video on 7 December 2023. The claimant, Mr D Ward, brought claims of unfair dismissal and breach of contract against Away Resorts Limited. The unfair dismissal claim was struck out by consent after the claimant accepted that he did not have two years' service, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear that claim.
The breach of contract claim related to a change in the claimant's workplace and the effect that this had on commission. The tribunal found that the effective date of termination was 3 January 2023, so the primary three-month time limit expired on 2 April 2023, subject to early conciliation. ACAS was notified on 3 March 2023, the early conciliation certificate was issued on 14 April 2023, and applying article 8B extended the time for presenting the claim to 14 May 2023. The claim was presented on 8 June 2023, which was 3 weeks and 4 days late.
Applying the reasonably practicable test under article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, and considering the authorities cited, the tribunal found that the claimant knew he could bring a claim and knew about the time limits after speaking to ACAS on 28 March 2023. Although the claimant was dealing with damage to his home and his son's hospitalisation and the tribunal accepted that those matters took priority, it found that he was not physically prevented from presenting the claim. The tribunal also found that he could have prepared and submitted the short claim form using accessible alternatives such as a library or internet cafe. It therefore held that it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, and the breach of contract claim was struck out for want of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out by consent because the claimant did not have 2 years' service and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Presented out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, art. 7
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, art. 8B
- reasonably practicable test
- Wall's Meat Co v Khan
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Wolverhampton University v Elbeltagi
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea BC
- London Underground Ltd v Noel
- Cullinane v Balfour Beattie Engineering Services Ltd
- Luton Borough Council v Haque
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.