Case 2206935/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Johnson v The Chambers of Mr Andrew Trollope QC and Mr Richard Christie QC — 2018
- Case reference
- 2206935/2018
- Decision date
- 15 November 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Glennie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Johnson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Johnson had been employed by the Respondents, a set of barristers' chambers, as Senior Clerk for just under six years before his summary dismissal on 2 August 2018. He presented a claim form on 6 December 2018 alleging unfair and wrongful dismissal, but the Respondents said the claim relied on an earlier ACAS early conciliation certificate that named the prospective respondent incorrectly.
The Employment Judge confirmed the earlier oral decision to reject the claim form. Relying on E.ON Control Solutions Ltd v Caspall and HMRC v Serra Garau, the tribunal held that a second ACAS certificate was not valid for the purposes of section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 and rule 12(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunals Rules 2013. The first certificate's naming error did not invalidate it, and the mandatory rejection provisions therefore applied.
The claimant had re-submitted the claim form on 13 September 2019, but the tribunal held that the claim was treated as presented on that date under rule 13(4) and was still out of time. The primary limitation period for unfair and wrongful dismissal had expired on 15 November 2018. The tribunal found it had been reasonably practicable to present a valid claim within time, noting that the claimant was legally represented throughout and that the original error was unexplained. The proceedings were therefore dismissed and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim form originally presented on 6 December 2018 was held to rely on an incorrect ACAS early conciliation certificate number. The tribunal confirmed that the re-presented claim delivered on 13 September 2019 was out of time and that it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal reached the same jurisdictional conclusion for the wrongful dismissal complaint. It held that the re-presented claim was treated as presented on 13 September 2019 under rule 13(4), but was still out of time because the primary limitation period had expired on 15 November 2018. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- section 18A Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- rule 12(1)(c) Employment Tribunals Rules 2013
- rule 12(2A) Employment Tribunals Rules 2013
- rule 13(4) Employment Tribunals Rules 2013
- not reasonably practicable
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore
- E.ON Control Solutions Ltd v Caspall
- HMRC v Serra Garau
- Sterling v United Learning Trust
- Cranwell v Cullen
- Chard v Trowbridge Office Cleaning Services Ltd
- Adams v British Telecommunications Plc
- North East London NHS Foundation Trust v Zhou
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.