Case 1801946/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Lister v Harvard Technology Limited (In Administration) AT A HEARING — 2019
- Case reference
- 1801946/2019
- Decision date
- 17 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Lister
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the only claim before it was a protective award claim presented on 1 May 2019. The claimant did not attend the hearing and did not submit written representations. The respondent had entered no appearance and did not attend.
Employment Judge Lancaster found that the claim was presented outside the three-month period running from 10 December 2018, as extended by the nine-day nominal period during which Early Conciliation stopped the clock. The claimant had entered ACAS Early Conciliation on 14 January 2019 and could have made a valid tribunal claim at any time after 23 January 2019, but did not provide an explanation for the delay. The tribunal found it had been reasonably practicable to submit the claim in time by 18 March 2019 and that, in any event, the claim was not presented within a reasonable time after that date. The protective award claim was dismissed, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment describes the claim as a claim for a protective award; the locked taxonomy has no specific protective award category. | 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.