Case 2307944/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Sharma v Taste Nepal Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2307944/2020
- Decision date
- 2 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Sharma
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt an open preliminary hearing on 2 December 2021, Judge M Aspinall held that the effective date of termination was 30 June 2020 under section 97(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal said that, even if the later date advanced by the Claimant, 14 September 2020, were accepted, the claims would still have been out of time.
The tribunal found that all of Mr Sharma's claims were presented on 19 February 2021 outside the applicable time limit and dismissed them for lack of jurisdiction. It refused the Claimant's application for an extension of time because he did not attend, did not provide a witness statement or other written evidence, and had not shown that he presented the claim as soon as reasonably practicable after the time limit expired or that it would be just and in accordance with the overriding objective to extend time.
The tribunal did not need to determine the separate issue of whether the Claimant had sufficient service to bring a claim. It allowed the Respondent's costs application and ordered Mr Sharma to pay £2,000 within 28 days, citing his non-attendance, the absence of any notice that an interpreter would be required, the absence of supporting evidence, and the unnecessary cost incurred by the Respondent in preparing for and attending the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claim was presented out of time and the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear it; the application for an extension of time was refused. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed because the claim was presented out of time and the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear it; the application for an extension of time was refused. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the claim was presented out of time and the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear it; the application for an extension of time was refused. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Dismissed because the claim was presented out of time and the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear it; the application for an extension of time was refused. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.97(1)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.