Case 1804421/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Quinn v Asda Stores Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1804421/2020
- Decision date
- 14 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Parkin Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Quinn
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal determined a preliminary issue about whether the claimant's unfair dismissal claim, presented on 30 July 2020, could proceed despite being out of time. It found that the claimant had no awareness of the time limits for bringing an unfair dismissal claim or of the tribunal procedure, and had wrongly believed he should wait until the respondent's two-stage internal appeal process had concluded.
The tribunal found that after dismissal the claimant asked his trade union shop steward what he should do next and was advised to go through the two-stage appeal process. It also accepted that the claimant was affected by the dismissal, his caring responsibilities for his wife, and anxiety and depression, while continuing to hope that the appeal would result in reinstatement. Although he could have researched tribunal time limits earlier, the tribunal concluded that in the circumstances it was not unreasonable for him to defer investigating a possible unfair dismissal claim until the final appeal outcome.
Once the second appeal was rejected by letter dated 23 July 2020, the claimant and his wife researched the position, notified ACAS on 28 July 2020, received the early conciliation certificate on 30 July 2020, and presented the claim the same day. The tribunal held that it had not been reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and that it was presented within a reasonable further period, so the claim would proceed to a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim was presented out of time, but it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time and it was presented within a reasonable further period, so the claim was allowed to proceed to a final hearing. The merits of the unfair dismissal claim were not determined. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- Palmer v Southend on Sea Borough Council
- Marks & Spencer PLC v Williams-Ryan
- John Lewis Partnership v Charman
- Walls Meat Co v Khan
- Sodexo Health Care Services v Harmer
- Cullinane v Balfour Beatty
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.