Case 1807220/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S C Kemp v The Quality Koi Company Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1807220/2022
- Decision date
- 9 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shulman REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S C Kemp
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr S C Kemp was employed by The Quality Koi Company Limited as a salesperson from June 2014 until his dismissal on 23 July 2022. The tribunal identified the claims as unfair dismissal, redundancy and no notice pay, and the only issue it determined was whether the claims had been presented in time and, if not, whether time should be extended under section 111(2) and (2A) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found that the three-month time limit, together with the early conciliation extension, meant the last date for presenting the complaint was 13 December 2022. It found that the claimant did not present his claim until 19 December 2022, so it was six days late. The claimant said at first that he did not know there were time limits, then said he knew of them when he received the claim form around 5 December 2022, but he could not remember when he sent the form off. He also suggested postal strike disruption, but could not give dates for that.
The tribunal found that the claimant had spent most of his working life as a shop fitting joiner and was equipped to understand that tribunal claims were subject to time limits. It found that he gave no evidence or reasonable explanation for the late presentation of the claim, and that he had been on notice from the tribunal letter dated 12 April 2023 that the hearing would address the limitation issue.
The tribunal decided that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented before the end of the limitation period and refused to extend time. All claims were therefore dismissed as out of time, without any determination of the merits or any award of remedy.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed as out of time; the tribunal made no merits determination. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment referred to this claim as 'redundancy' and dismissed it as out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment referred to this claim as 'no notice pay' and dismissed it as out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- s.111(2A) ERA 1996
- reasonably practicable test
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.