Case 2201483/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v L Fakunle (solicitor- Peninsula) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2201483/2023
- Decision date
- 18 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson Appearances
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a constructive unfair dismissal claim. At the hearing on 13 June 2024, the tribunal raised time limits of its own motion, heard submissions from both parties, and then considered whether the claim had been presented within the statutory time limit or whether time should be extended.
The tribunal found that the claimant resigned on 20 October 2023, so that date was the effective date of termination for limitation purposes. Applying s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996 and the ACAS early conciliation rules in s.207B, it held that the last date for presenting the claim was 21 January 2024. The claim was in fact presented on 30 January 2024, so it was out of time.
The tribunal then considered whether it had been reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim in time. It accepted that the claimant had engaged with ACAS shortly after resignation and had done his own research, including checking the CAB website, but found that the lateness resulted from a misunderstanding of the time limit rather than any incapacity preventing a timely claim. Although the claimant said he was upset and depressed after losing a job he had held for fifteen years, the tribunal found there was no indication that he was incapacitated between the end of early conciliation and the filing date.
On that basis, the tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim, and struck it out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal claim found out of time; tribunal held it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.207B Employment Rights Act 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.