Case 2204404/2022 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Ms P Nketiah, Solicitor — 2022
- Case reference
- 2204404/2022
- Decision date
- 21 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Karl Knight brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Openreach Limited. Employment Judge P Klimov, sitting alone at London Central by video on 21 November 2022, held that the Employment Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider the complaint.
The tribunal found that the claim was presented after the end of the three-month period beginning with the effective date of termination, and that it was reasonably practicable for the complaint to have been presented before that period expired. On that basis, the unfair dismissal complaint failed and the proceedings were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The written record also notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the complaint was presented after the end of the three-month period beginning with the effective date of termination and that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction under section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- 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.