Case 2204878/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 2204878/2020
- Decision date
- 10 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Norris
- Venue
- Central London
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Norris sitting alone on 10 May 2021. The Tribunal dealt with limitation only. It found that the claimant’s claim was presented out of time under section 111(2)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and that it had in fact been reasonably practicable to present the claim in time.
The Tribunal also found, in any event, that the claim was not presented within a period that it considered reasonable after the expiry of the time limit, under section 111(2)(b) ERA 1996. On that basis, time was not extended.
Because the time limit was not extended, the Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim. The claim was therefore dismissed. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing only. The Tribunal found the claim was presented out of time under section 111(2)(a) ERA 1996, that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, and that it was not presented within a reasonable period after the time limit expired under section 111(2)(b). The Tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.111(2)(a) ERA 1996
- s.111(2)(b) ERA 1996
- reasonably practicable
- reasonable period
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.