Case 2200566/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Dr M Davys v Environment Agency — 2022
- Case reference
- 2200566/2022
- Decision date
- 27 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heath Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr M Davys
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on whether the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint had been presented within the applicable time limits. The claimant's employment ended on 30 September 2021, Early Conciliation began on 29 October 2021, and an Early Conciliation certificate was issued on 15 November 2021. The revised time limit was 15 January 2022, but the claim was presented on 9 February 2022.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had not known the certificate had been sent to his trade union representative and accepted that he had experienced stress and Covid-related fatigue. However, it found that by 25 November 2021 the claimant had received a letter making clear that the union would not assist with a tribunal claim, that there was a time limit, and that he could still submit a claim himself.
Taking account of the claimant's circumstances, the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for him to discover the applicable time limit and present the claim in time. In the alternative, it would also have found that the claim was not presented within a reasonable period after the claimant was told by ACAS on 27 January 2022 that the claim was potentially out of time. The tribunal therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the unfair dismissal complaint was presented outside the statutory time limit and time was not extended. The underlying complaint arose from the claimant's resignation, but the judgment addresses the time limit for an unfair dismissal complaint under s.111 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.111(2)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Palmer and Or v Southend-on-Sea BC
- Consignia v Sealy
- Walls Meat Co v Khan
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Times Newspapers Ltd v O'Regan
- Syed v Ford Motor Co Ltd
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.