Case 2303194/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Verburg v The Down’s Syndrome Association — 2021
- Case reference
- 2303194/2020
- Decision date
- 21 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cheetham QC
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Verburg
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the open preliminary hearing on 27 September 2021, Employment Judge Cheetham QC considered a claim brought by Mr R Verburg arising from his employment as an Employment Development Officer with the Down's Syndrome Association. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had started work on 3 February 2019 and that his employment ended on 17 February 2020, so he had less than 2 years' continuous service. On that basis, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint.
The ET1 also referred to wrongful dismissal and detriment said to arise from protected disclosures. The tribunal found those complaints were out of time. It set out the relevant dates as 17 February 2020 for termination, 14 May 2020 for Acas notification, 18 June 2020 for the Acas certificate, 18 July 2020 as the limitation date, and 31 July 2020 as the date the ET1 was presented. The claim was therefore 13 days late.
The claimant relied on technical difficulties with his computer, ill-health, a pending Freedom of Information request, the Covid-19 pandemic, and caring responsibilities. The tribunal accepted that those matters may have made proceedings more difficult, but held that they did not show it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. The claimant said at the hearing that he was no longer pursuing age discrimination, so that complaint was withdrawn. The tribunal therefore dismissed the claim overall and recorded no remedy.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claimant had less than 2 years' continuous service; his employment ran from 3 February 2019 to 17 February 2020. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the ET1 was presented out of time; after Acas Early Conciliation the limitation date was 18 July 2020 and the claim was lodged on 31 July 2020, 13 days late. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the same limitation basis as the wrongful dismissal complaint; the tribunal treated the pleading as a detriment claim arising from protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The claimant stated at the hearing that he was no longer pursuing age discrimination, and the complaint was treated as withdrawn. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- 3 month time limit
- 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.