Case 1803262/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T M Brook v Asda Stores Ltd HELD by CVP in Leeds — 2024
- Case reference
- 1803262/2023
- Decision date
- 22 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shulman REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T M Brook
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr T M Brook, had an unfair dismissal claim against Asda Stores Ltd. The hearing was listed by video, and the tribunal recorded that the claimant emailed shortly before the hearing saying he was 67, did not have a computer, and was confused by the process because of stress, anxiety and depression. The tribunal noted that he could use email, was directed to the helpline, and was told that the hearing would proceed, but he did not attend.
The tribunal said the purpose of the hearing was to consider whether the claim was presented out of time under sections 111(2)(a) and (b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and, if so, whether it should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It recorded that the claimant was dismissed on 25 November 2022, entered early conciliation on 23 February 2023, received his early conciliation certificate on 6 April 2023, and should therefore have presented his claim by 6 May 2023. The claim was presented on 16 May 2023, 10 days late.
Because the claimant did not attend, the tribunal said it could not examine whether it was not reasonably practicable for the unfair dismissal complaint to be presented within the primary time limit. It concluded that it had no alternative but to dismiss the claim, and the judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed on non-attendance. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed on non-attendance. The tribunal noted the claim was presented 10 days out of time and said it could not examine whether it was not reasonably practicable to present the unfair dismissal complaint within the primary time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- sections 111(2)(a) and (b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- not reasonably practicable
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.