Case 2304061/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Christopher Williams v McDonalds — 2023
- Case reference
- 2304061/2022
- Decision date
- 5 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sudra
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Christopher Williams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningChristopher Williams brought a claim for unfair dismissal arising from the termination of his employment with McDonalds on 29 April 2022. The tribunal held that the claim was presented outside the three-month time limit under s.111 ERA 1996: early conciliation with Acas did not begin until 9 November 2022, and the ET1 was presented on 10 November 2022, well after the primary limitation period had expired.
The tribunal considered whether it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time. It noted that the claimant had been advised in person at London South Employment Tribunal in or around 12 May 2022 that he needed to contact Acas, that he had support from friends and family, and that he had communicated with the respondent and about his employment rights during the relevant period. The tribunal did not accept the claimant's recollection that Acas had put him on a waiting list and found that his lack of knowledge about time limits was not reasonable.
Applying the statutory test, the tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been submitted in time and therefore did not need to decide whether any further delay after the limitation period was reasonable. The claim was struck out and dismissed in its entirety for want of jurisdiction. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claim was presented out of time and was struck out and dismissed in its entirety. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.111(2)(a) ERA 1996
- s.111(2)(b) ERA 1996
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Palmer and anor v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser
- Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton
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.