Case 2402168/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G McSweeney v Mill Farm Sports Village Limited trading as AFC Fylde — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402168/2022
- Decision date
- 17 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G McSweeney
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered a single unfair dismissal claim brought by Mr G McSweeney against Mill Farm Sports Village Limited trading as AFC Fylde. At the preliminary hearing on 12 October 2022, Employment Judge Johnson held that the claim form had not been presented within the time limits in sections 111 and 207B of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the claim form within the statutory time limit and that no extension of time was appropriate under section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claim could not proceed.
The judgment states that the claim is dismissed because it was not presented in time and the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear it. The final hearing listed for 14 December 2022 was cancelled. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the claim form was not presented within the time limits in sections 111 and 207B Employment Rights Act 1996, that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, and that no extension of time was appropriate. The claim was therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- sections 111 and 207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable test under 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.