Case 2403488/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Astle v Travis Perkins plc — 2020
- Case reference
- 2403488/2020
- Decision date
- 15 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Astle
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered an application for interim relief following the claimant's dismissal. The claimant had first attempted to present a claim on 19 April 2020, but that form did not include an ACAS early conciliation certificate number, did not identify an exemption, and did not state that an application for interim relief was being made. The tribunal found that the earlier claim form had been correctly rejected.
The second claim, presented on 22 April 2020, did include an interim relief application. The tribunal found that the effective date of termination was 14 April 2020, when the dismissal decision was communicated to the claimant. The seven-day time limit under section 128 therefore expired on 21 April 2020, making the application one day late.
Because the tribunal had no discretion to extend the statutory time limit for interim relief applications, it dismissed the application. The judgment stated that this decision did not affect the substantive merits of the complaints, which were to be considered later after the respondent submitted its response.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment determined only the application for interim relief. The tribunal expressly said the decision had no bearing on the substantive merits of the complaints raised. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 128 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 128(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 97 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 111(2)(b) 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.