Case 2202818/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 2202818/2020
- Decision date
- 29 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A James Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the matter remotely by CVP with the parties' consent, together with oral evidence from the claimant and submissions from both sides. It held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claimant's claims because they had been compromised by a binding settlement agreement between the parties dated 21 October 2019, relied on under s.203 Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal also held that it did not have jurisdiction because the claims were not presented in time, referring to ss.48(3) and 111 Employment Rights Act 1996 and Article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. The judgment therefore struck out the claims on jurisdictional grounds and did not reach any merits findings.
No remedy was awarded. The written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Judgment disposed of the claims as a group; this claim type is inferred from the case listing. The tribunal held the claims were compromised by a binding settlement agreement dated 21 October 2019 under s.203 ERA 1996 and were also out of time under the statutory limitation provisions. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Judgment disposed of the claims as a group; this claim type is inferred from the case listing. The tribunal held the claims were compromised by a binding settlement agreement dated 21 October 2019 under s.203 ERA 1996 and were also out of time under the statutory limitation provisions. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Judgment disposed of the claims as a group; this claim type is inferred from the case listing. The tribunal held the claims were compromised by a binding settlement agreement dated 21 October 2019 under s.203 ERA 1996 and were also out of time under the statutory limitation provisions. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Judgment disposed of the claims as a group; this claim type is inferred from the case listing. The tribunal held the claims were compromised by a binding settlement agreement dated 21 October 2019 under s.203 ERA 1996 and were also out of time under the statutory limitation provisions. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.203 Employment Rights Act 1996
- ss.48(3) and 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.