Case 1404769/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Tamas v KHL (Poole) limited t/a Holiday Inn Express Poole — 2022
- Case reference
- 1404769/2021
- Decision date
- 7 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Halliday Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Tamas
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing heard by video on 25 August 2022 before Employment Judge Halliday. By consent, the correct name of the Respondent was recorded as KHL (Poole) Limited t/a Holiday Inn Express Poole, and the claim against the second Respondent as an individual was dismissed.
The only substantive claim recorded in the judgment was unfair dismissal. The tribunal found that the claim had been issued outside the statutory time limit, including the early conciliation extension, under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal also found that it was reasonably practicable for the unfair dismissal claim to have been issued in time. On that basis, the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. The written record notes that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim was issued outside the statutory time limit, including the early conciliation extension, under section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been issued in time. The judgment also records that the claim against the second Respondent as an individual was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- 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.