Case 2303156/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Daniel Gibson v Tavern on the Green Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2303156/2021
- Decision date
- 19 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Carney Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Daniel Gibson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Daniel Gibson brought unfair dismissal, breach of contract and unlawful deduction from wages claims against Tavern on the Green Limited. At the hearing on 19 August 2022 before Employment Judge Carney, the Tribunal held that all three claims had been lodged outside the statutory time limit.
The Tribunal also found that it had been reasonably practicable for the claims to have been presented within the applicable time limit. On that basis, the Tribunal decided it had no jurisdiction to consider any of the claims.
Each of the unfair dismissal, breach of contract and unlawful deduction from wages claims was therefore dismissed, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claim was lodged outside the statutory time limit and it was found to have been reasonably practicable for it to have been lodged in time; the Tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed because the claim was lodged outside the statutory time limit and it was found to have been reasonably practicable for it to have been lodged in time; the Tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the claim was lodged outside the statutory time limit and it was found to have been reasonably practicable for it to have been lodged in time; the Tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.