Case 2200618/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2200618/2022
- Decision date
- 5 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Coen
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 1 July 2022 before Employment Judge Coen sitting alone, the tribunal dealt with preliminary issues arising from the claimant's claims for notice pay and expenses. It held that it had territorial jurisdiction to hear those claims by virtue of section 3 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 and the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, and it found that the claimant was an employee within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal then held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider either claim because they had not been presented within the applicable time limits. The claimant's claims were accordingly dismissed. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The preliminary judgment dealt with the claimant's notice pay claim. The tribunal found it had territorial jurisdiction in principle and that the claimant was an employee, but held that this claim was not presented within the applicable time limits and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The preliminary judgment also dealt with the claimant's expenses claim. The tribunal found it had territorial jurisdiction in principle and that the claimant was an employee, but held that this claim was not presented within the applicable time limits and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 3 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- Employment Rights Act 1996
- applicable time limits
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.