Case 2500447/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Halliwell v Advance365 Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500447/2023
- Decision date
- 20 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
- Panel members
- Ms A Tarn, Mr P Chapman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Halliwell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat at Newcastle CFCTC on 18-20 March 2024 before Employment Judge Arullendran, with Ms A Tarn and Mr P Chapman. It gave a unanimous judgment dismissing Mr D Halliwell's ordinary unfair dismissal complaint under s.98 ERA 1996 because the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to do so.
The tribunal made the same limitation finding in relation to the automatic unfair dismissal complaint under s.103A ERA 1996, the detriment complaint for making a protected disclosure under s.47B ERA 1996, and the complaint of failure to pay notice pay / breach of contract. It held that each of those complaints was out of time and that it was reasonably practicable to present them in time.
The remaining complaints, for unauthorised deduction of wages and for accrued and outstanding holiday pay, were found not well founded and were dismissed. The judgment records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint under s.98 ERA 1996; dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal complaint under s.103A ERA 1996; dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment complaint for making a protected disclosure under s.47B ERA 1996; dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Complaint of failure to pay notice pay / breach of contract; dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint of unauthorised deduction of wages; found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Complaint of failure to pay accrued and outstanding holiday pay; found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.47B ERA 1996
- applicable time limit
- reasonably practicable
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.