Case 1405688/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr C Johnson, Tribunal Advocate — 2020
- Case reference
- 1405688/2019
- Decision date
- 1 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Goraj Appearances
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal conducted a remote preliminary hearing by video conference on 1 June 2020 before Employment Judge Goraj. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr C Johnson, Tribunal Advocate. The hearing took place remotely because of the COVID-19 pandemic and because a face-to-face hearing was not considered necessary in the interests of justice and the overriding objective.
The tribunal dismissed the claim. Its reason was procedural rather than substantive: the claim had not been presented within the relevant statutory time limit, and the tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented it in time. On that basis, the claim did not proceed to a merits hearing.
The judgment does not record any award of compensation or other remedy. Written reasons were not provided because reasons were given orally at the hearing and no request for written reasons appears in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not identify the underlying cause of action in the extracted text; classified from the gov.uk listing category. Dismissed at a preliminary hearing because the claim was not presented within the relevant statutory time limit and it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have done so. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- relevant statutory time limit
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.