Case 1804178/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Hack v Bay Horse (2021) Limited (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 1804178/2023
- Decision date
- 20 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
3 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing in Leeds on 20 November 2023, before Employment Judge Lancaster, the claimant appeared in person. The first respondent did not attend, the liquidators having given notice that they did not intend to do so, and the second respondent appeared by CVP video link.
The Tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim and the breach of contract claim, described as wrongful dismissal without proper notice, were not presented within three months of the date of termination or within any extended period allowed for ACAS early conciliation. It further found that it would have been reasonably practicable to have presented them in time. On that basis, the Tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear those claims and struck them out.
The redundancy payment claim was treated differently. The Tribunal held that it was in time and said that it would proceed. No final decision was made on liability or any remedy for that claim at this hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Not presented within 3 months of the termination date, or any extended period under ACAS early conciliation; the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction and struck it out. The Tribunal also said it would have been reasonably practicable to have done so in time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim pleaded as breach of contract (wrongful dismissal without proper notice). It was not presented within 3 months of termination, or any extended ACAS early conciliation period; the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction and struck it out. The Tribunal also said it would have been reasonably practicable to have done so in time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The Tribunal held this claim was in time and said it would proceed. No final liability decision was made in this preliminary hearing. | Other | — | — |
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.