Case 2410954/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Dacey v Mr P Dodding (Stainless Restoration Ltd) and 3 others — 2020
- Case reference
- 2410954/2019
- Decision date
- 23 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
5 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Dacey presented his claim on 20 August 2019, but because the Acas early conciliation number was initially incomplete the tribunal treated the effective presentation date as 27 September 2019. The claim followed the end of his employment on 12 April 2018 and arose against a background of Burnley Beadblasting Ltd entering creditors’ voluntary liquidation on 27 June 2018, with the Secretary of State refusing Insolvency Fund payments in August 2018 on the basis that he believed there had been a transfer of undertaking to SRL (Bead and Blast) Ltd.
Before any merits issue or the Secretary of State’s transfer argument could be decided, the tribunal determined that the claim was out of time. The judge found that the ordinary three-month limit had expired on 11 July 2018 for the unfair dismissal and non-redundancy money claims, and that the six-month period for redundancy pay expired on 11 October 2018. Although Mr Dacey had accepted the position when his employment ended, awaited the insolvency process, received forms to claim from the Insolvency Fund, and engaged in correspondence with officials, he did not bring a tribunal claim in 2018.
The tribunal accepted that Mr Dacey was advised about the Insolvency Fund route and Acas early conciliation, and it accepted his evidence that he later obtained new work and was affected by his mother’s illness. It also noted that he entered early conciliation on 17 September 2018 and received a certificate on 19 September 2018, but by then he was already out of time for all claims except redundancy pay. The judge found it was reasonably practicable to present a timely claim and, if not, that the eventual claim was not presented within a reasonable time. The claim was dismissed against all respondents, and the tribunal did not reach the underlying merits or any appeal against the Secretary of State’s refusal to pay.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claim was presented out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim by 11 July 2018 and, if not, that it was not presented within a reasonable time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment claim dismissed as out of time. The judgment identified a 6-month limit expiring on 11 October 2018, but the claim was not treated as presented until 27 September 2019. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to 'unpaid wages' but does not separately label the legal cause; this entry maps that head to unlawful deduction from wages. It was dismissed as time-barred on the same reasoning as the other non-redundancy claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay head. The judgment does not separately classify it, but the claim was dismissed as time-barred and the case listing included breach of contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay head dismissed as time-barred on the same reasoning as the other non-redundancy monetary claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- reasonably practicable
- within a reasonable time
- Acas early conciliation
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.