Case 2300599/2020 · Employment Tribunal

K Bartholomew v Southcoast Scaffolding Limited Heard remotely: on CVP — 2021

Case reference: 2300599/2020
Decision date: 24 August 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Henderson

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

K Bartholomew

Respondent

Southcoast Scaffolding Limited Heard remotely: on CVP

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant brought a claim for unfair dismissal arising from the end of his employment on 5 August 2019. The tribunal considered as a preliminary issue whether the claim was presented within the applicable time limit, including the ACAS early conciliation extension, and found that the claim should have been lodged by 17 December 2019 but was received on 3 February 2020.

The tribunal found the claimant's account of the late presentation inconsistent and unclear. It did not accept that the post-book extract alone was sufficient to show the ET1 was posted on 2 December 2019, and found that the claimant had not given a coherent explanation showing that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time or within a further reasonable period.

The tribunal concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim, so the claim could not proceed. No remedy was awarded.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim because it was presented outside the statutory time limit and the claimant had not shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time. The claimant confirmed he was not pursuing age discrimination.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.