Case 2403460/2020 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Mr M McLaughlin (solicitor) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2403460/2020
- Decision date
- 4 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A Childs' complaints against Amey Services Limited were heard by Employment Judge Johnson at Manchester by CVP on 2 March 2021. The tribunal held that the claimant's complaints were not presented in time in respect of all of the complaints brought by him, relying on sections 23(2) and 111(2)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and regulation 30(2)(a) of the Working Time Regulations 1998.
The tribunal did not accept that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present his claims within the relevant time limits. It therefore refused to extend time under sections 23(4) and 111(2)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and regulation 30(2)(b) of the Working Time Regulations 1998.
As a result, the tribunal dismissed the claim because it did not have jurisdiction to hear it. No remedy or monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal found the complaint was not presented in time and did not accept that it was not reasonably practicable to present it within the relevant time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the tribunal found the complaint was not presented in time and did not accept that it was not reasonably practicable to present it within the relevant time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Dismissed because the tribunal found the complaint was not presented in time and did not accept that it was not reasonably practicable to present it within the relevant time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- not reasonably practicable
- s.23(2) ERA 1996
- s.111(2)(a) ERA 1996
- reg. 30(2)(a) WTR 1998
- s.23(4) ERA 1996
- s.111(2)(b) ERA 1996
- reg. 30(2)(b) WTR 1998
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.