Case 2303665/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Obonyo v Communication Workers Union — 2024
- Case reference
- 2303665/2023
- Decision date
- 6 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leith Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Obonyo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Obonyo worked for the Communication Workers Union from 1 March 2021 on a fixed-term contract, which was extended three times before a final expiry date of 25 February 2023. The tribunal found that the repeated extensions did not create a custom and practice requiring further renewal, and that the contractual notice provisions did not displace the fixed-term nature of the contract. The tribunal therefore held that the effective date of termination was 25 February 2023.
The tribunal accepted that the respondent tried to contact the claimant during February 2023, including emails on 10, 14, 16, 20 and 22 February and letters hand-delivered to his address. It found that he had received the 22 February 2023 email at the latest by 25 February 2023, when he sent an email from his personal account and attached medical records. Even if he had not seen that email, the tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for him to know that his fixed-term contract had ended on 25 February 2023, and that his injuries and presence abroad did not prevent him from researching or starting a tribunal claim.
On that basis, the unfair dismissal, breach of contract, unlawful deduction from wages and holiday pay complaints were all outside the relevant time limits. The claimant did not contact ACAS until 10 July 2023, the certificate issued on 11 July 2023, and the claim was presented on 14 July 2023, well after the primary limitation periods had expired. The tribunal therefore dismissed those complaints for lack of jurisdiction.
The tribunal also said that, even if the unfair dismissal complaint had been in time, it would have been struck out because the claimant had not completed the two-year qualifying service required by section 108 ERA 1996 by the effective date of termination. The statutory redundancy payment claim was struck out because, on the tribunal's findings about the termination date and length of service, it had no reasonable prospect of success.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was presented outside the primary time limit and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to bring it in time. The tribunal also said the claimant had not completed two years' continuous service by the effective date of termination, so the claim would in any event have had no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was presented outside the time limit under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 and it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claim was brought outside the three-month time limit in section 23 ERA 1996 and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for accrued but untaken annual leave dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was presented outside the time limit under the Working Time Regulations 1998 and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out because the claimant did not have the necessary two years' continuous service ending on the relevant date, so the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out |
Legal tests applied
12 references- Rule 37 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- Rule 39 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- A v B and another [2011] ICR D9
- Cox v Adecco and ors [2021] ICR 1307
- Tayside Public Transport Co Ltd v Reilly [2012] IRLR 755
- HM Prison Service v Dolby [2003] IRLR 694
- Hemdan v Ishmail and anor 2017 ICR 486
- Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Patrick Brophy [2019] EWCA Civ 2490
- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- s.23 ERA 1996
- regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, article 7
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.