Case 1803668/2019 · Employment Tribunal
No attendance or v Ellesmere Youth Project — 2019
- Case reference
- 1803668/2019
- Decision date
- 19 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
No attendance or
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 3 December 2019 before Employment Judge Brain, the Tribunal refused the claimant's adjournment application dated 2 December 2019. It read the claimant's witness statement dated 5 July 2019 and received evidence from Miss Abtisan Mohammed for the respondent, dated 12 November 2019.
Taking the claimant's case at its highest, the Tribunal found that the effective date of termination was 5 March 2019, on the basis that six weeks' notice had been served on 22 January 2019 and took effect from 23 January 2019. On that basis, the limitation periods expired on 4 July 2019, but the claimant presented his complaints on 5 July 2019.
The Tribunal held that the claims were therefore presented outside the relevant limitation periods and that it was reasonably practicable to have presented them in time. It concluded that it had no jurisdiction to consider the complaints, so no merits issues or remedy were determined.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed as out of time; the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed as out of time; the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed as out of time; the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.