Case 1403878/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr Paul Isherwood and Mrs Sue Isherwood T/a Four Seasons Cafe — 2020
- Case reference
- 1403878/2019
- Decision date
- 12 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 21 October 2020, Employment Judge N J Roper heard from the claimant only; the respondents did not attend. The tribunal found that the claimant had worked for the respondents' cafe from 22 April 2016 and that her employment ended summarily on 10 May 2019. The claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal, breach of contract in respect of notice pay, accrued but unpaid holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998, and age discrimination.
The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal, breach of contract, and holiday pay claims were all presented out of time. It found that the effective date of termination was 10 May 2019, so the three-month limitation period expired at midnight on 9 August 2019. Although the claimant was initially unaware of tribunal procedure and time limits, the tribunal found that she received advice from the CAB within the limitation period and was then told how to issue proceedings and contact ACAS. It concluded that it was reasonably practicable to have presented the claims in time, and that the claimant had not discharged the burden of showing otherwise.
The tribunal noted that the claimant contacted ACAS on 4 September 2019, received the Early Conciliation certificate the same day, and did not present the claim until 16 September 2019. It found that she had taken about four to five weeks after receiving advice before starting ACAS conciliation, and then a further two weeks before issuing proceedings. On that basis, the tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal, breach of contract, and holiday pay claims as out of time.
For the age discrimination claim, the tribunal considered whether it would be just and equitable to extend time under section 123(1) of the Equality Act 2010. Applying the section 33 Limitation Act 1980 factors, and referring to the authorities it listed, it found no grounds for an extension. The tribunal therefore dismissed the age discrimination claim as out of time as well.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed as presented out of time. The tribunal found the effective date of termination was 10 May 2019, so the three-month time limit expired at midnight on 9 August 2019, and it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed as presented out of time. The claim for notice pay was treated as subject to the same time limit analysis as the unfair dismissal claim, and no extension was allowed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed as presented out of time. The claim concerned accrued but untaken holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998, and the tribunal held it was not brought within time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Dismissed as out of time. The tribunal considered the section 33 factors and held there was no basis for a just and equitable extension under section 123(1) of the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- reasonably practicable
- s.207B ERA 1996
- s.123(1) EqA 2010
- just and equitable
- section 33 Limitation Act 1980 factors
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea BC
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Wall's Meat Co v Khan
- London Underground Ltd v Noel
- Cullinane v Balfour Beattie Engineering Services Ltd
- Robertson v Bexley Community Service
- Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police v Caston
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.