Case 2416628/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Sherlock v Panad Site Services Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2416628/2019
- Decision date
- 16 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McDonald REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Sherlock
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 8 September 2020, Employment Judge McDonald dealt only with the claimant’s complaints that were dismissed or struck out. The claimant told the tribunal that his case was that he was constructively dismissed on 16 January 2020 when he resigned with immediate effect. On that basis, the tribunal found that he had not been dismissed when he presented his claim form on 17 December 2019.
The tribunal therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint and the redundancy payment complaint because both were brought prematurely. It recorded that, at the point the claim was filed, there had been no dismissal and no redundancy entitlement that the tribunal could determine. The claimant’s complaint for notice pay in breach of contract was dismissed for the same jurisdictional reason, because he had not yet been given notice of termination when the claim was presented.
The claimant also advanced a claim for a lay off payment under s.147 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal explained that such a claim requires a written notice in accordance with s.148(1) ERA 1996, and the claimant accepted that he had not given that notice. The tribunal struck out that claim under rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 because it had no reasonable prospect of success.
The judgment states that the remaining complaints were unaffected and would proceed to a final hearing. No monetary award was made in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant had not yet been dismissed when he presented the claim on 17 December 2019; the tribunal held it was brought prematurely and outside jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed because the claimant had not yet been dismissed when he presented the claim on 17 December 2019; the tribunal held it was brought prematurely and outside jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay complaint was dismissed because the claimant had not been given notice of termination when he presented the claim form, so it was brought prematurely and the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The claim for a 'lay off payment' under s.147 ERA 1996 was struck out under rule 37(1)(a) because the claimant had not given the written notice required by s.148(1) ERA 1996 and the tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.147 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.148(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.