Case 1800457/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Cowling v Harvard Technology Limited (In Administration) AT A HEARING — 2019
- Case reference
- 1800457/2019
- Decision date
- 17 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Cowling
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that it was not reasonably practicable for Mr M Cowling to have presented the claim in time, and that it was presented within a reasonable time after 9 March 2019. Time to present the claim was therefore extended and the claim was allowed to proceed.
The claim for a protective award succeeded. Harvard Technology Limited (In Administration) was ordered to pay the claimant remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 10 December 2018.
The judgment records that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefit) Regulations 1996, regulations 6, 7 and 8, apply to the award. Any award was to be postponed pending any recoupment notice by the Secretary of State in respect of relevant benefits received by the claimant in the prescribed period, with only the balance of any remuneration due then payable directly to the claimant. No monetary amount was stated in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment records that the claim for a protective award succeeded. The locked taxonomy has no specific protective award category; the award was remuneration for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 10 December 2018, with no monetary amount quantified. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- not reasonably practicable
- reasonable time
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.