Case 2202897/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2202897/2019
- Decision date
- 11 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Stout Representations
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a judgment on a preliminary issue in Mr S Bhardwaj’s unfair dismissal claim against HighQ Solutions Limited. Employment Judge Stout heard the matter at London Central on 9 March 2020 and decided only the limitation and jurisdiction question, not the merits of dismissal.
The tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim. It found that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to bring the claim within the ordinary time limit under s.111(2)(a) ERA 1996, and that he brought the claim within a reasonable further period under s.111(2)(b) ERA 1996. No substantive liability finding or monetary remedy was recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary issue only. The tribunal held it had jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim because it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present it within the ordinary time limit and it was presented within a reasonable further period under s.111(2)(b) ERA 1996. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.111(2)(a) ERA 1996
- s.111(2)(b) ERA 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.