Case 1600341/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K John v Guvs Taxis Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600341/2022
- Decision date
- 22 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Sharp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K John
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs K John’s claim of unfair dismissal was dismissed because it was presented outside the statutory time limit in s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found that it had been reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time, so it lacked jurisdiction to determine the unfair dismissal complaint.
The claimant’s wages complaint was also not entertained. The tribunal held that it was based on an allegation that the respondent had been paid a furlough grant, rather than on an assertion that the claimant was entitled to wages that had not been paid, and therefore it was not a wages claim. The tribunal added that, even if it were treated as a wages claim, it would have been out of time for the same reasons as the unfair dismissal claim.
The judgment also records that there was no claim for annual leave before the tribunal. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claim was presented outside the statutory time limit under s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996; the tribunal found it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held this was not properly a wages claim because it was based on an assertion that the respondent received a furlough grant, not on unpaid wages. It also said that, in any event, any wages claim would be out of time for the same reasons as the unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.111(2) 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.