Case 2413699/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Holt and Mrs J Holt v R & M Gaskarth — 2022
- Case reference
- 2413699/2020
- Decision date
- 11 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murphy Representation
- Venue
- Manchester ET
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Holt and Mrs J Holt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants, Mr C Holt and Mrs J Holt, brought claims for unfair dismissal and breach of contract. The respondent applied for Samuel Smiths Old Brewery to be dismissed as a respondent and for R & M Gaskarth to be substituted, which the tribunal allowed.
The main issue was whether the claims had been presented in time. The claimants said the effective date of termination was 30 or 31 May 2020, while the respondent said it was 14 May 2020. The tribunal found that the effective date of termination was 14 May 2020.
On that basis, the tribunal held that both claims were presented out of time and that it was not satisfied it was not reasonably practicable for the claims to have been lodged in time. The tribunal therefore concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear either the unfair dismissal or breach of contract complaint, and both claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed on jurisdictional grounds because the claim was presented out of time and the tribunal was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed on jurisdictional grounds because the claim was presented out of time and the tribunal was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable test
- effective date of termination
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.