Case 1805830/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Chowdhury v Bayleaf 2020 Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1805830/2020
- Decision date
- 25 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Chowdhury
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing in Sheffield on 21 January 2022, Employment Judge Brain determined that the effective date of termination of the contract of employment was no later than 30 May 2020. The claimant had brought complaints of express or constructive unfair dismissal, express or constructive wrongful dismissal, and unauthorised deduction from wages. The Tribunal held that those complaints were presented outside the relevant limitation periods and that it had no jurisdiction to consider them because it was reasonably practicable for them to have been presented within time.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held the complaint was presented outside the relevant limitation period, with no jurisdiction because it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time. In the alternative, if the claimant resigned only on or around 16 October 2020, the constructive dismissal claim failed because the contract had been affirmed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The Tribunal held the complaint was presented outside the relevant limitation period, with no jurisdiction because it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal held the complaint was presented outside the relevant limitation period, with no jurisdiction because it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time. In the further alternative, the Tribunal found that no wages were properly payable after 31 March 2020. | 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.