Case 2203695/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2203695/2019
- Decision date
- 11 April 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A James
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 4 December 2019 before Employment Judge A James sitting alone, the tribunal considered the claimant's breach of contract claim against Standard Chartered Bank. The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 because the claimant had signed a redundancy agreement in which he accepted its terms in full and final settlement of any and all claims against the respondent, thereby waiving the right to bring the claim.
The tribunal also found that it lacked jurisdiction because the claim was presented outside the three-month time limit. It concluded that it would have been reasonably practicable for the claimant to begin Acas early conciliation by 11 April 2019 and then submit the claim within a month after that. The claim was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim because the claimant had signed a redundancy agreement accepting its terms in full and final settlement of any and all claims against the respondent, which waived the breach of contract claim. It also found the claim was presented out of time and that it would have been reasonably practicable to start Acas early conciliation by 11 April 2019 and then submit the claim within a month thereafter. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- three-month time limit
- reasonably practicable
- Acas early conciliation
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.