Case 2205787/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Parekh v Lloyds Bank plc — 2021
- Case reference
- 2205787/2020
- Decision date
- 25 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Parekh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of unfair dismissal, breach of contract (wrongful dismissal), and unlawful deductions from wages. The preliminary issue was whether the tribunal had jurisdiction, having regard to the applicable time limits. The claimant did not provide written representations as ordered before the hearing.
The tribunal found that the claimant was employed from 1 April 2019 until 21 February 2020, which was the effective date of termination. He was entitled to one month's notice and the respondent paid £2,083.43 gross in lieu of notice. The claim was presented on 4 September 2020, and early conciliation was notified to ACAS on 6 July 2020, after the expiry of the primary time limit.
The tribunal concluded that early conciliation did not extend time because it was commenced after the time limit had expired. It found that the claimant had been given a reasonable opportunity to explain why it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, but had not done so. The tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim within the three-month time limit, and struck out the claim for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claim was presented out of time. The respondent also pleaded lack of two years' qualifying service, but the judgment struck out the claim on jurisdiction/time-limit grounds. | Struck out | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Pleaded as breach of contract (wrongful dismissal). The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claim was presented out of time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claim was presented out of time. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.23(2) ERA 1996
- s.111(2)(a) ERA 1996
- Article 7 of Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994/1623
- s.207(B)(3) ERA 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd 1978 ICR 943, CA
- Sterling v United Learning Trust EAT 0439/14
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.