Case 2408053/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Ojinnaka v Tuffnells Parcel Express Limited (In administration) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2408053/2021
- Decision date
- 23 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robinson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Ojinnaka
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the remote hearing in Liverpool on 2 November 2021, Employment Judge Robinson held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with the claimant's claims. The claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and any claim for unlawful deduction of wages or other payments were dismissed because they had been presented out of time and the Tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable to issue proceedings within the relevant time limit.
In the alternative, the Tribunal held that even if it had accepted that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claims before the expiry of the three-month period, the claims would still be dismissed because the claimant could have issued proceedings sooner after contacting ACAS. The Tribunal also found that the claimant did not have two years' service in order to bring an unfair dismissal claim.
No monetary remedy was awarded. The written record of the decision was sent to the parties on 23 December 2021.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed as out of time; the tribunal also found the claimant did not have two years' service for an unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed as out of time; the tribunal also found proceedings could have been issued sooner after contacting ACAS. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed as out of time; the tribunal also found proceedings could have been issued sooner after contacting ACAS. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.