Case 2304688/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T B Barnden v Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club — 2020
- Case reference
- 2304688/2019
- Decision date
- 3 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Rourke Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T B Barnden
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed with effect from 14 June 2019 and brought unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims, including a claim relating to a bonus payment. The only issue heard was limitation. The parties agreed that, taking ACAS Early Conciliation into account, the limitation date was 13 October 2019. The tribunal set out the statutory time limits in section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996 and regulation 7 of the Employment Tribunal's Extension of Jurisdiction (E&W) Order 1994, and referred to Dedman, Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan, and Initial Electronic Security Systems Ltd v Avdic when considering whether it had been reasonably practicable to present the claims in time.
On the evidence, the tribunal found that the claimant had solicitors throughout, had been given a gov.uk link, and had ample opportunity to check either with his solicitors or the tribunal website how to submit the claim. He said he phoned the tribunal on 7 October 2019 and was told to submit by email, but the tribunal found there was no corroboration for that account and no basis to rely on it. The claim was not presented by the prescribed method until 15 October 2019, after the limitation date, and the tribunal found that leaving the claim until almost the last moment reduced any margin for error.
The tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claims within time. It distinguished the 'reasonably practicable' test from the 'just and equitable' test used in discrimination claims and found no other relevant factor, such as illness or postal delay, that would excuse the late presentation. The unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims were therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed at a preliminary hearing for want of jurisdiction because the claim was not presented in time and it was held to have been reasonably practicable to present it within the limitation period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed at a preliminary hearing for want of jurisdiction under the Employment Tribunal's Extension of Jurisdiction (E&W) Order 1994 because the claim was presented out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 7 Employment Tribunal's Extension of Jurisdiction (E&W) Order 1994
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Initial Electronic Security Systems Ltd v Avdic
- reasonably practicable test
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.