Case 2500611/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Christopher Armstrong v Meadow Well Connected — 2021
- Case reference
- 2500611/2020
- Decision date
- 8 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rodger Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Christopher Armstrong
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing listed to decide whether Mr Christopher Armstrong’s claim had been presented within the statutory three-month time limit running from the effective date of termination, or whether the tribunal should allow a further period because it had not been reasonably practicable to present the complaint in time. The tribunal heard oral evidence from the Claimant and from Ms Mandy Cresswell for the Respondent, together with submissions from both sides.
Employment Judge Rodger found that the effective date of termination was 23 October 2019. On that basis, the claim had not been submitted before the end of three months beginning with that date. The tribunal also found that the Claimant had failed to show that it was not reasonably practicable for him to have presented the complaint before the end of the three-month period.
The claim was therefore dismissed. The judgment records that neither party requested written reasons.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Public preliminary hearing on whether the claim was presented in time. The tribunal found the effective date of termination was 23 October 2019, so the claim was not presented before the end of three months from that date, and the Claimant did not show that it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- three months beginning with the effective date of termination
- not 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.