Case 1600241/2019 · Employment Tribunal
IN PERSON FOR THE v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1600241/2019
- Decision date
- 27 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Panel members
- MS S D ATKINSON, MRS M WALTERS
Parties
1 namedClaimant
IN PERSON FOR THE
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously found that it had no jurisdiction to hear Mr W Newell's detriment claim under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 because the complaint was presented outside the statutory time limit. It also found that Mr Newell had not established that it was not reasonably practicable to present that complaint within the time limit.
The tribunal further held that Mr Newell's unfair dismissal claim under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well founded and dismissed it. His separate unfair dismissal claim under section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996 was also found not well founded and dismissed.
No remedy was awarded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the detriment claim under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 because it was presented outside the statutory time limit and the claimant did not establish that it was not reasonably practicable to bring it in time. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claim under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claim under section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996 was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.