Case 2201039/2021 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr B Orellana Requena (2) Mr B Orellana Coimbra v Atlas Cleaning Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2201039/2021
- Decision date
- 17 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Joffe Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mr B Orellana Requena (2) Mr B Orellana Coimbra
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 10 December 2021 at London Central via the Cloud Video Platform, Employment Judge Joffe decided the preliminary time-limit issue for the claims brought by Mr B Orellana Requena and Mr B Orellana Coimbra against Atlas Cleaning Limited. The judgment records that the claims for unfair dismissal, holiday pay and notice pay had been presented outside the relevant time limits, and that it was reasonably practicable to present those claims in time.
On that basis, those three claims were dismissed. The written judgment does not set out any merits findings on the dismissed claims because the decision turned on limitation.
The judgment further records that the claimants' redundancy payment claims were presented in time and were to proceed to hearing on 16 and 17 May 2022. The note at the foot of the judgment states that oral reasons were given and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Presented outside the relevant time limits; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Presented outside the relevant time limits; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim presented outside the relevant time limits; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- reasonably practicable
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.