Case 2303202/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Lewis v Caffyns plc — 2023
- Case reference
- 2303202/2022
- Decision date
- 19 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Lewis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr S Lewis's claim against Caffyns Plc was heard at a public preliminary hearing on 19 May 2023 before Employment Judge Wright. The claimant did not attend and did not provide written representations. On the morning of the hearing he emailed a GP fit note referring to anxiety and asking for a postponement, but the tribunal noted that the request had not been copied to the respondent and did not comply with the Presidential Guidance on postponements. The tribunal decided to proceed in his absence.
The tribunal held that the claim had been presented out of time. The claimant's employment ended on 24 November 2021, early conciliation ran from 25 November 2021 to 13 December 2021, and the ET1 was not presented until 11 September 2022, almost six months late. Applying the s.111 ERA 1996 time limit and the 'not reasonably practicable' test, and relying on Asda Stores Limited v Kauser and Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd v Britton, the tribunal accepted the respondent's submission that there was no evidence showing it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time.
The tribunal noted that the claimant had said stress and anxiety prevented a timely claim, but he produced no supporting evidence. It also found that, during the relevant period, he had been able to appeal the grievance outcome, contact Acas, complete early conciliation, write further correspondence, and work. In those circumstances the jurisdiction objection succeeded, and the claim was dismissed. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Public preliminary hearing on whether the claim was in time. The tribunal dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction under s.111 ERA 1996; no merits findings were made. The judgment does not separately identify any whistleblowing complaint, although the claimant had referred to protected disclosures in correspondence. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- Asda Stores Limited v Kauser
- Cygnet Behavioural Health Ltd v Britton
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.