Case 2300744/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. G. Shortland v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2300744/2019
- Decision date
- 21 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sage Representation
- Venue
- London South Croydon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. G. Shortland
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented an unfair dismissal claim on 27 February 2019 following dismissal on 30 October 2018. The tribunal found that the primary limitation period expired on 29 January 2019 and, after early conciliation on 2 January 2019, the extended deadline expired on 2 February 2019.
The claimant said he had been unwell, had misunderstood the effect of early conciliation, and had been waiting for union assistance. The tribunal accepted that dismissal was distressing and that he had been unwell for a period, but found there was no evidence that it was not reasonably practicable for him to present the claim by 2 February 2019.
The tribunal also found that, even if it had not been reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, the claim was not presented within a reasonable further period. It held that a reasonable further period would have been two or three days at most, and dismissed the claim as out of time. The tribunal considered the claimant's statement that he was also claiming discrimination, but found that the ET1, read sensibly, advanced only an unfair dismissal claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claim was presented outside the time limit under section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal also considered whether the ET1 could be read as including discrimination and found that it could not. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- such further period as was reasonable
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.