Case 1803759/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Makuwa v Elysium Health Care — 2023
- Case reference
- 1803759/2022
- Decision date
- 9 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Makuwa
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 20 December 2022, Employment Judge Brain considered the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint against Elysium Health Care Limited. The judgment records that the complaint was presented outside the limitation period in section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found that it had been reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the complaint in time. On that basis, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint.
No remedy was awarded because the claim was not entertained on the merits. The judgment does not record any lay members, and the hearing was before Employment Judge Brain alone.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal complaint was presented outside the limitation period in section 111 ERA 1996 and that it was reasonably practicable to have presented it in time; accordingly, the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.