Case 2415699/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Smith v Fluorsid British Fluorspar Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2415699/2020
- Decision date
- 1 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that the claimant's complaints were presented more than three months after the relevant detriment in April 2020 and/or the effective date of termination on 29 or 30 June 2020, contrary to ss. 48(3) and 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the complaints within the normal three-month limitation period.
The Tribunal therefore declined to extend time to 7 October 2020, when the claimant first notified ACAS of a potential claim as part of early conciliation. As a result, the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaints and dismissed the claim. The final hearing listed for 9, 10 and 11 February 2022 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed because the complaint was presented more than 3 months after the relevant detriment in April 2020 and the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present in time; no extension to 7 October 2020 for ACAS early conciliation. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claim was presented more than 3 months after the effective date of termination on 29 or 30 June 2020 and the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present in time; no extension to 7 October 2020 for ACAS early conciliation. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.48(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable to present in time
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.