Case 1801011/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Tandu v Estabulo Group — 2019
- Case reference
- 1801011/2019
- Decision date
- 4 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shulman REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Tandu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs D Tandu began working for Estabulo Group on 1 January 2017 and was dismissed on 21 June 2018. She presented claims to the Employment Tribunal on 11 March 2019 for unfair dismissal, no notice pay, no holiday pay and unauthorised deduction from wages. The Tribunal recorded that she accepted she did not have sufficient continuity of employment for an unfair dismissal claim, and it treated the unfair dismissal complaint as one it had no jurisdiction to hear on that basis.
On the time limit issue, the Tribunal found that the Claimant consulted ACAS within one week of dismissal and was told the three-month limit at the outset. She also began seeking legal advice within a month, contacted more than 20 firms, and said she later experienced depression from August 2018 to July 2019. The Tribunal noted that no medical evidence was produced to show that depression prevented her from issuing the claim, and that she in fact did issue the claim in March 2019 while describing herself as being in that period of depression.
Applying section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996, the Tribunal held that the Claimant knew of her rights and the time limit almost immediately after dismissal, had not been misled by any advice, and had no reasonable explanation for failing to present the claims within time. It found that it was reasonably practicable for her to issue the claims within the three-month period, so the no notice, holiday pay and unauthorised deduction of wages claims were dismissed as out of time.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Claimant did not have sufficient continuity of employment to bring an unfair dismissal claim; the Tribunal also said it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim on that basis. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The no notice claim was dismissed because it was presented outside the three-month period from the effective date of termination and the Tribunal was not satisfied that it had not been reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay claim was dismissed as out of time; the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the complaint within the three-month period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unauthorised deduction of wages claim was dismissed as out of time, with no sufficient basis found for extending time under section 111(2) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- continuity of employment
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.