Case 2500098/2021 · Employment Tribunal
C Massey v Duncan Belton Nest Egg Homes — 2021
- Case reference
- 2500098/2021
- Decision date
- 21 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
C Massey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, C Massey, brought an unfair dismissal complaint against Duncan Belton Nest Egg Homes. The case was heard by Employment Judge Aspden on 21 May 2021, with no attendance for the claimant and representation for the respondent by Mr R Bradley, counsel.
The tribunal found that the unfair dismissal complaint had been presented outside the time limits in sections 111(2)(a) and (b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the complaint and dismissed it.
No monetary award was made, and the written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing. No separate remedy calculations were recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the complaint was presented outside the time limits in sections 111(2)(a) and (b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- sections 111(2)(a) and (b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.