Case 2305096/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Sinnathamby v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2305096/2019
- Decision date
- 11 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Matthews Representation
- Venue
- In Chambers
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Sinnathamby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that Mr Sinnathamby's complaints of unfair dismissal, including by reference to sections 94, 98 and 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, were not presented to an employment tribunal before the end of the period specified in section 111 of that Act.
On that basis, the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaints. The complaints were therefore dismissed. Oral reasons were given, and written reasons would only be provided if requested by a party within 14 days of the written record being sent.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint by reference to sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed because it was not presented within the time limit in section 111, so the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The complaint by reference to section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed because it was not presented within the time limit in section 111, so the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- sections 94, 98 and 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.