Case 1800476/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Barber v Homebase Rooms Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1800476/2020
- Decision date
- 10 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Barber
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 1 September 2020 Employment Judge Brain refused the claimant's application for reconsideration of the judgment of 26 August 2020. The application, treated from the claimant's email of 22 August 2020, was said to be in time, but the tribunal applied Rule 70 of the Employment Tribunals Rules and held that reconsideration was not necessary in the interests of justice because there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.
The tribunal held that the breach of contract claim had been presented out of time. It accepted that the contract was terminated without notice on 13 October 2019, that ACAS early conciliation was not commenced until 20 January 2020, and that the claim form was presented on 22 January 2020. On that basis the three-month limit had already expired, and there was no evidence that it had not been reasonably practicable to present the claim in time.
The tribunal also addressed the claimant's alternative case that the termination date was 17 November 2019. It said that this did not assist him because the respondent had agreed an ex gratia payment of £653.75, which together with sums already paid brought him to five weeks' pay. The tribunal's view was that he had recovered the value of the breach of contract claim, so the claim could not be pursued further as a matter of law.
As to the redundancy payment claim, the tribunal stated that it was presented in time because a six-month limitation period applied to redundancy claims, and that a redundancy award had been made accordingly. The judgment does not record any further monetary award in the reconsideration decision itself.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal refused reconsideration, holding the breach of contract claim was presented out of time and that there was no reasonable prospect of success. It also said that, even on the claimant's alternative termination date, the respondent's ex gratia payment together with sums already paid had extinguished the value of the notice-pay claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal stated that the redundancy payment claim was presented in time because a six-month limitation period applied, and that a redundancy award had been made accordingly in the earlier judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 70 reconsideration
- overriding objective
- Article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994
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.