Case 2305851/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A James v Listen Limited, in voluntary liquidation — 2022
- Case reference
- 2305851/2021
- Decision date
- 14 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barker Representatives
- Venue
- Croydon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A James
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place at Croydon on 14 November 2022 before Employment Judge Barker. Neither party attended. The tribunal recorded that the claimant did not respond to the clerk's attempts to contact him by email or mobile phone.
The claimant's protective award claim in this case was dismissed because it duplicated a multiple-claim protective award already proceeding in the Bury St Edmunds Tribunal. The tribunal treated the duplicate London South claim as an abuse of process. It noted that the separate protective award claim in case no. 3325565/2019 was unaffected and remained listed for hearing in December 2022.
The claims for unfair dismissal and redundancy payment were dismissed because the claimant did not have two years' service, which meant the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider those claims. The breach of contract and holiday pay claims were dismissed as out of time. The tribunal noted that the claimant left employment in August 2019, did not begin ACAS Early Conciliation until 13 December 2021, and submitted the ET1 on 15 December 2021. It found no evidence that it had not been reasonably practicable to present those claims sooner.
The tribunal also said that it was appropriate to strike out the claims under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 because they were not being actively pursued. No monetary award was made in this case.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim for a protective award. The tribunal said this duplicate claim was an abuse of process because a multiple-claim protective award was already proceeding in the Bury St Edmunds Tribunal, and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant did not have two years' service, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed because the claimant did not have two years' service, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed as presented out of time; the claimant left employment in August 2019 but did not start ACAS Early Conciliation until 13 December 2021 and filed the ET1 on 15 December 2021. The tribunal said there was no evidence that it had not been reasonably practicable to present the claim sooner, and also noted strike-out under Rule 37 for non-pursuit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed as presented out of time; the claimant left employment in August 2019 but did not start ACAS Early Conciliation until 13 December 2021 and filed the ET1 on 15 December 2021. The tribunal said there was no evidence that it had not been reasonably practicable to present the claim sooner, and also noted strike-out under Rule 37 for non-pursuit. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- abuse of process
- Rule 37 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- not reasonably practicable
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.