Case 2303686/2018 · Employment Tribunal
No appearance or v Mr G Mcketty legal manager — 2020
- Case reference
- 2303686/2018
- Decision date
- 15 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Truscott QC
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
No appearance or
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Roye was employed by Education My Life Matters from 8 March 2016 until dismissal with effect from 2 July 2018. At the remote preliminary hearing on 15 December 2020, the claimant did not attend. The respondent appeared through its legal and HR manager, Mr G Mcketty. The tribunal decided to proceed in the claimant's absence, noting that he knew of the hearing, gave no reason for not attending, and that an adjournment would further delay a long outstanding matter and would not do justice to the respondent.
The issue for determination was whether the unfair dismissal complaint had been presented in time. The tribunal found that the primary limitation period expired on 1 October 2018. It noted that the claim form had been presented on 11 October 2018 and was initially rejected because no ACAS certificate had been provided. The claimant later produced an ACAS certificate dated 8 November 2018 after an early conciliation period recorded as running from 8 November 2018 to 8 November 2018, and the claim was accepted on 29 November 2018.
Applying section 111(2) ERA 1996 and the authorities cited in the reasons, including Porter v Bandridge Ltd, Dedman v British Building Engineering Appliances Ltd, Walls Meat Co Ltd v Khan, and Palmer & Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council, the tribunal held that the claimant had offered no substantial explanation for the delay. It found that it had been reasonably practicable to present the claim within time. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore struck out for lack of jurisdiction, and the tribunal did not consider whether the claim had any reasonable prospects of success.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out at a preliminary hearing because the claim was presented outside the primary time limit in s.111(2) ERA 1996 and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- s.207B ERA 1996
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Dedman v British Building Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Walls Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Palmer & Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Rule 2 overriding objective
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.