Case 1405835/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Heath, Lay Representative, USDAW For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 1405835/2023
- Decision date
- 3 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr C Heath, Lay Representative, USDAW For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered at a preliminary hearing whether the claimant's unfair dismissal claim had been presented in time. The claimant was dismissed with effect from 12 April 2023, began ACAS Early Conciliation on 1 June 2023, received the certificate on 30 June 2023, and the extended time limit expired on 9 August 2023. The claim was presented on 12 November 2023.
The claimant said he had suffered from depression following his dismissal and relationship breakup and had not felt well enough to engage in the process. The tribunal found there was no medical evidence supporting that he was too unwell to present the claim, and the claimant accepted that he and his union advisers had sufficient information to present it within time.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant had not shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the time limit, nor that it was presented within such further time as was reasonable. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was dismissed because it was presented out of time and the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- Luton Borough Council v Haque
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea BC
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Wall's Meat Co v Khan
- London Underground Ltd v Noel
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances
- London International College v Sen
- Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum Ltd
- Cullinane v Balfour Beattie Engineering Services Ltd
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.