Case 2303299/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Gurr v Home Office — 2022
- Case reference
- 2303299/2021
- Decision date
- 5 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Braganza QC
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Gurr
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was summarily dismissed on 26 February 2021 for gross misconduct after admitting criminal offences and not informing the respondent of his arrest or conviction until October 2020. He began early conciliation on 22 June 2021 and presented his ET1 on 3 August 2021. The tribunal found that the three-month time limit ran from the effective date of termination, 26 February 2021, and expired on 25 May 2021.
The tribunal concluded that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the unfair dismissal claim in time. It noted that he had internet access, could have checked the process earlier, could have contacted ACAS or the tribunal, and had six weeks after the appeal outcome in which to make enquiries and present the claim. The tribunal accepted the period was stressful but did not accept that this made timely presentation not reasonably practicable.
Because there was no basis to extend time, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. It added that, had the claim been in time, it would have struck it out as having no reasonable prospect of success, applying the conduct dismissal principles in BHS v Burchell and section 98(4) ERA 1996. The unpaid holiday pay claim was no longer pursued at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim was presented outside the statutory time limit and that it had no jurisdiction to hear it. It also stated that, if necessary, it would have struck out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claimant had presented an unpaid holiday pay claim, but at the hearing he no longer pursued it. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
20 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Savage v J Sainsbury Ltd
- Bodha v Hampshire Area Health Authority
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Marks & Spencer v Williams-Ryan
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Sterling v United Learning Trust
- rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- no reasonable prospect of success
- Eszias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- Twist DX Ltd v Armes
- rule 39 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- deposit order
- Van Rensburg v The Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
- Hemdan v Ishmail
- BHS v Burchell
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- range of reasonable responses
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.