Case 2400040/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Hussain v SLYNKS (Strengthening Links between the Youth and Networks, Communities and Specialists) (Claim No 2400040/2019 only) and 4 others — 2020
- Case reference
- 2400040/2019
- Decision date
- 27 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharkett
- Venue
- Manchester via CVP
Parties
6 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting alone before Employment Judge Sharkett, heard the claimant's claims of unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages. It found that both claims were presented outside the time period prescribed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal further found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to bring the claims within the prescribed time limit. On that basis, it held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear either claim and the claims failed on jurisdictional grounds.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim not presented within the prescribed time limit under the Employment Rights Act 1996; tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to bring it in time and therefore had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim not presented within the prescribed time limit under the Employment Rights Act 1996; tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to bring it in time and therefore had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- time limit under the 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.