Case 2300125/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Craig Hodges v Monarch Partnership Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300125/2021
- Decision date
- 24 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Craig Hodges
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Hodges was dismissed on 15 September 2020 and presented unfair dismissal and redundancy payment claims on 12 January 2021 after ACAS Early Conciliation began on 8 January 2021. The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim was brought outside the statutory time limit under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996: the last date for presentation was 14 December 2020, so the claim was 29 days late and ACAS Early Conciliation could not extend time because it started after that date.
The tribunal then considered whether it had been reasonably practicable for the unfair dismissal claim to be presented in time. It cited the authorities including Dedman, Porter, Palmer, Asda Stores v Kauser, and DHL Supply Chain v Fazackerley. It did not accept Mr Hodges' evidence that an ACAS adviser had told him the limitation period was four months, finding his account unreliable and preferring the inference that he delayed because he had taken another job and later decided, after that job ended, to pursue the matter.
On that basis the tribunal held that the statutory test was not met and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim for lack of jurisdiction. At the hearing Mr Hodges accepted that he had already been paid the correct redundancy payment and withdrew that claim, which the tribunal dismissed upon withdrawal. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim presented 29 days out of time; tribunal found it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time and did not accept the claimant's evidence that ACAS had told him the time limit was four months. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | At hearing the claimant accepted he had been paid the correct redundancy payment and withdrew the claim; the tribunal dismissed it upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser
- DHL Supply Chain Ltd v Fazackerley
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.