Case 2303245/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Kerkouki v Guarding UK Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2303245/2020
- Decision date
- 9 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Abbott
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Kerkouki
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Kerkouki brought claims for unfair dismissal and unpaid notice pay. The tribunal heard the case as a preliminary issue to decide whether it had jurisdiction, because the claims were presented out of time. The effective date of termination was 24 January 2020. For the unfair dismissal claim, Day A under the ACAS early conciliation rules was 1 April 2020 and Day B was 23 April 2020, so the ordinary deadline was 23 May 2020. The ET1 was presented on 5 August 2020, about 2.5 months late.
The tribunal applied the two-stage test under s.111(2)(b) ERA 1996: whether it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, and if so whether it was presented within a reasonable period afterwards. It cited Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd, Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan, and Porter v Bandridge Ltd. The equivalent time-limit provisions for breach of contract claims were also noted. Mr Kerkouki relied on job seeking, Universal Credit applications, anxiety and depression, difficulty contacting his union representative, the need for advice, and family bereavements and his sister's cancer diagnosis.
The tribunal accepted that Mr Kerkouki had spoken to his GP about anxiety and/or depression, but found there was no medical evidence showing that illness prevented him from filing the claims on time. It also found that his ability to pursue an internal appeal, engage with ACAS, apply for many jobs, and complete Universal Credit forms was inconsistent with a finding that he was prevented from presenting the ET1. The family difficulties did not establish the required causal link either. The inability to contact the existing union representative did not make it not reasonably practicable to claim, because alternative sources of advice were available. The tribunal was not persuaded there was a reasonable justification for the further delay of around five weeks after he spoke to the union representative. The claims were therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claim was presented out of time under s.111 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the same time-limit point, applying the equivalent breach of contract provisions. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.111(2)(b) ERA 1996 not reasonably practicable test
- s.207B ERA 1996 ACAS early conciliation extension
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Articles 7 and 8B Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.