Case 1801518/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Cartwright v Carbolite Gero Limited Heard via Cloud Video Platform in the North East Region — 2023
- Case reference
- 1801518/2023
- Decision date
- 27 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Cartwright
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought an unfair dismissal claim after his employment ended on 13 October 2022. At the preliminary hearing on 27 July 2023, Employment Judge Ayre considered only whether the claim had been presented in time under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had raised a grievance in June 2022 and that the grievance and appeal process ran into December 2022 and February 2023.
The tribunal found that the claimant knew by 28 September 2022, and certainly by 3 October 2022, both of his right to bring a constructive unfair dismissal claim and the existence of the tribunal time limit. He had also spoken to ACAS, written to the respondent about his "active case for Constructive Unfair Dismissal", and had access to the internet and email. He nevertheless did not start early conciliation until 14 March 2023 and did not present the claim until 20 March 2023, after the primary three-month time limit had expired on 12 January 2023.
Applying the statutory test of whether it had been "reasonably practicable" to present the claim in time, the tribunal held that waiting for the outcome of the internal grievance process did not excuse the delay. It relied on the claimant's knowledge of his rights, his ability to research and act on them, and the absence of any persuasive explanation for the further delay after the appeal outcome on 6 February 2023. The tribunal also held that the later delay was not a reasonable further period, and that early conciliation did not extend time because it began after the primary limitation period had already expired. The claim was therefore out of time and the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear it.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing only; the tribunal held the claim was presented out of time and that it lacked jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.111 ERA 1996
- s.207B ERA 1996
- reasonably practicable
- within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Bodha v Hampshire Area Health Authority
- Sodexo Health Care Services Ltd v Hamer
- Cullinane v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services Ltd
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.