Case 2405702/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Owens v Cardinal Heenan Catholic High School Governing Body — 2022
- Case reference
- 2405702/2021
- Decision date
- 12 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Owens
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr A Owens, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Cardinal Heenan Catholic High School Governing Body. Employment Judge Anderson sat alone by CVP and heard the matter on 11 and 12 May 2022, with the claimant in person and the respondent represented by counsel.
The tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to submit his claim within the prescribed time limit under s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, the tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to consider the claim. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore found not well founded and was dismissed.
The respondent applied for costs, but that application was refused. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present his claim within the prescribed time limit in s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996, so it had no jurisdiction to consider the complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.