Case 2300217/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Cafer v Lornar Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300217/2021
- Decision date
- 2 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation Claimant
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Cafer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the claimant’s effective date of termination was no later than 31 August 2020. It accepted that there had been difficulties in the evidence from both sides, but concluded that the claimant’s account was inconsistent and that the documentary material, including the P45 and the respondent’s records, showed that employment had ended by the end of August 2020. The Tribunal rejected the claimant’s case that her employment continued into October 2020, finding instead that the work done from 13 to 18 October 2020 was a stand-alone and separate arrangement that did not preserve or resuscitate continuity of employment.
On that basis, the primary three-month time limit for the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims expired on 30 November 2020. The Tribunal found that ACAS early conciliation began on 22 December 2020, after the expiry of the relevant limitation period. It also found that the claimant had not shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claims in time: she knew by September 2020 that she was concerned about not having a job, and the Tribunal concluded that she could then have taken steps to pursue her rights.
The Tribunal therefore held that the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims were out of time and that it had no jurisdiction to hear them. It also held that the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages in relation to work done on or before 31 August 2020 was out of time and outside jurisdiction. By contrast, the claim for unpaid work done in October 2020 was held to be within the relevant time limit and was left for determination at the final hearing. The judgment also records that the redundancy payment claim was agreed to be in time and therefore was not considered at this preliminary hearing, and that the holiday pay claim was not within the scope of the listed preliminary issues.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the claim was presented outside the applicable three-month time limit after the Tribunal found the effective date of termination was no later than 31 August 2020. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the claim was presented outside the applicable three-month time limit after the Tribunal found the effective date of termination was no later than 31 August 2020. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal held that deductions relating to work performed on or before 31 August 2020 were out of time and outside jurisdiction, but that the unpaid October 2020 work was a separate one-off arrangement and remained within time for determination at the final hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.111(2)(a) and (b) ERA 1996
- article 7, Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- article 8B, Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- s.23(2) to (4) ERA 1996
- s.207B ERA 1996
- not reasonably practicable
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.