Case 2405355/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Fletcher v Nexperia (UK) Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2405355/2020
- Decision date
- 15 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Fletcher
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Fletcher was employed by Nexperia (UK) Ltd as a Production Manager from 25 July 2011 until his dismissal on 16 December 2019. He brought claims for unfair dismissal and breach of contract (notice). The preliminary hearing was to decide whether those claims had been presented within the relevant time limits. The tribunal recorded that ACAS early conciliation began on 9 March 2020 and the certificate was issued on 9 April 2020, so the primary deadline was 9 May 2020.
The first claim form was lodged on 6 May 2020, but the ACAS early conciliation number entered on it was wrong. The tribunal accepted that the mistake was unintentional and occurred during the early COVID-19 lockdown when the solicitor was working remotely, but it held that the error did not make it not reasonably practicable to present the claims in time. It applied section 111(2) ERA 1996 and the equivalent notice-claim time limit in regulation 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, together with the authorities it discussed on reasonable practicability, including Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Patrick Brophy, Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan, Dedman v British Building & Engineering Appliances Ltd, and North East London NHS Foundation Trust v Zhou.
The tribunal therefore found that both claim forms were out of time and that it had no jurisdiction to consider any of the claims. It also rejected the respondent's request to vary or set aside Employment Judge Parkin's earlier decision: the original rejection had been correct, but the defect was later rectified, so the claim was properly treated as presented on 13 May 2020 under rule 13. The tribunal said that did not change the conclusion that the claims were still out of time. No compensation or other remedy was awarded because the claims were dismissed at the jurisdiction stage.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the tribunal found the claim was presented out of time and it was reasonably practicable to have lodged it within the primary limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the tribunal found the notice claim was presented out of time and it was reasonably practicable to have lodged it within the primary limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- regulation 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- not reasonably practicable
- rule 13 reconsideration
- rule 29 vary or set aside
- Lowri Beck Services Ltd v Patrick Brophy
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Dedman v British Building & Engineering Appliances Ltd
- North East London NHS Foundation Trust v Zhou
- Tesco Stores Limited v Kayani
- E.ON Control Solutions Ltd v Caspall
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.