Case 2218668/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jitesh Varsani v Pyramid Plus South LLP PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 2218668/2024
- Decision date
- 26 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Akhtar Appearances
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Jitesh Varsani
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 20 September 2024, Employment Judge Akhtar considered Mr Jitesh Varsani’s claims for unfair dismissal, constructive unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal against Pyramid Plus South LLP. The Tribunal held that all three claims were presented outside the statutory time limit.
The judgment records that it was reasonably practicable for the claims to have been lodged within the statutory time limit. On that basis, the Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims.
Each of the three claims was therefore dismissed. The judgment does not record any remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Presented outside the statutory time limit; the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been lodged in time and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Presented outside the statutory time limit; the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been lodged in time and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Presented outside the statutory time limit; the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been lodged in time and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- statutory time limit
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.