Case 1800538/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Baratang v Harvard Technology Limited (In Administration) AT A HEARING — 2020
- Case reference
- 1800538/2019
- Decision date
- 24 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Baratang
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed Mr Baratang's claim for a protective award. It found that the claim was presented on 27 September 2019, outside the three-month period running from 10 December 2018 to 9 March 2019. It held that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been submitted in time and, in any event, that it was not presented within a reasonable time after 9 March 2019.
The reasons recorded that the claim had originally been submitted on 5 February 2019, which would have been in time, but the claim form wrongly stated that ACAS did not have power to conciliate and the claimant had not properly applied for an ACAS Early Conciliation certificate. The claim was rejected and notification was sent on 13 March 2019. The claimant began early conciliation that day and a certificate was issued on 28 March 2019, but the certificate number was not provided to the tribunal until 27 September 2019. The tribunal did not accept that it had not been reasonably practicable to forward the certificate until six months later, and found that the claimant did not act reasonably promptly.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim dismissed because the tribunal found the valid claim was presented out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- 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.