Case 2416733/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Warburton v Premier Cleaning & Transport Services (UK) Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2416733/2019
- Decision date
- 24 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Benson Representation
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Warburton
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 13 March 2020 before Employment Judge Benson in Liverpool, the tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim was out of time. It found that the claim had not been presented within the prescribed time limits and that it was not reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it.
The same decision was made in relation to the complaint that the respondent had failed to provide a statement of written terms and conditions of employment. That complaint was also struck out because it was not presented within the prescribed time limits and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it.
The tribunal did not determine the disability discrimination complaints at this hearing. It recorded that those complaints would proceed to the final hearing listed for 22 to 25 February 2021. No remedy was awarded in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claim was not presented within the prescribed time limits and it was not reasonably practicable to do so; the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Complaint that the respondent failed to provide a statement of written terms and conditions of employment; struck out for the same time-limit and jurisdiction reasons. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- reasonably practicable to do so
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.