Case 1803975/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Sekisambu v St Anne’s Community Services — 2019
- Case reference
- 1803975/2019
- Decision date
- 17 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Licorish
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for the respondent as a casual support worker from 2 August 2010 and last worked a shift on 7 November 2015. After the Home Office raised concerns about his immigration status, he asked in February 2016 for holiday pay and sick pay and was paid for 5 hours' accrued holiday. He later asked for a P45, and the respondent confirmed to the Home Office in April 2016 that he had last worked in 2015. By letter dated 16 May 2018, the respondent said it was updating its casual worker database and removed him from its list because he had not worked for a significant period; his P45 was issued on 18 May 2018.
The tribunal treated the complaints of unfair dismissal, breach of contract (notice pay) and unpaid holiday pay or unlawful deductions under the Working Time Regulations 1998 as subject to the usual three-month time limits, subject to the statutory extension where it was not reasonably practicable to present in time. It found that, by at least July 2018, when he said he read the May 2018 letter, the claimant knew he had potential claims but decided not to pursue them because he wanted to focus on his immigration position and other litigation. It accepted that homelessness, lack of income and detention made his circumstances difficult, but found that during August to October 2018 he was able to email, do online research and attend the civil court in Leeds daily, so it was reasonably feasible for him to start ACAS early conciliation and submit a tribunal claim within time.
On the alternative argument that the claims were presented within a further reasonable period, the tribunal was not satisfied. It rejected as unreasonable the claimant's belief that he had to print the claim form and attach a large number of documents, noting that the form did not require supporting documents and that claims could be made online. It therefore held that it was reasonably practicable to present the complaints in time and dismissed the unfair dismissal, breach of contract, and holiday pay or unlawful deduction complaints for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for being presented out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and that no further reasonable period justified the delay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay complaint dismissed for being presented out of time on the same jurisdictional basis. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Complaint for unpaid accrued annual leave framed as unlawful deductions from wages and/or holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998; dismissed as out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.111 ERA 1996
- s.23 ERA 1996
- Article 7 Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994
- regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998
- reasonably practicable test
- Palmer v Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Asda Stores Limited v Kauser
- Trevelyans Ltd v Norton
- Nolan v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services
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.