Case 2300085/2026 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Smith v Mansfield Sports Group Limited (in voluntary liquidation) — 2026
- Case reference
- 2300085/2026
- Decision date
- 15 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heath Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Smith
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider Mr M Smith’s claims against Mansfield Sports Group Limited (in voluntary liquidation). The claims were out of time under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and regulation 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994.
The tribunal did not find that it had not been reasonably practicable to bring the claims within the applicable time limits or within a reasonable period thereafter. It therefore dismissed the claims. The written judgment records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claim was out of time under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; the tribunal did not determine its merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claim was out of time under regulation 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994; the tribunal did not determine its merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 7 Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- not reasonably practicable test
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.