Case 2411234/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Farrell v Bootle Containers Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2411234/2021
- Decision date
- 27 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McCarthy REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Farrell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge McCarthy on 17 June 2022, the claimant was not in attendance and the respondent was represented by Ms L Quigley of Counsel. The Tribunal recorded that Mr L Farrell had brought complaints of unfair dismissal and breach of contract under case number 2411234/2021.
The Tribunal found that both the unfair dismissal complaint and the damages claim for breach of contract of employment were not presented in time, despite it being reasonably practicable to do so, and were not presented within a further reasonable period. On that basis, the Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear either complaint and dismissed the claim in its entirety. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the complaint was not presented in time despite it being reasonably practicable to do so, and was not presented within a further reasonable period; the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed because the damages claim for breach of contract of employment was not presented in time; the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable to do so
- within a further reasonable period
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.