Case 2500982/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Handa v The Station Hotel (Newcastle) Ltd and Others Heard at Newcastle by Cloud Video Platform By: Cloud Video Platform (CVP) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500982/2024
- Decision date
- 11 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the public preliminary hearing, the claimant confirmed that he was not proceeding with the complaint against the fourth respondent. The tribunal therefore dismissed that complaint upon withdrawal.
The tribunal considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear the complaint against the fifth respondent. It found that the alleged detriment was the fifth respondent's investigation report sent to the first respondent on 22 December 2023, and accepted that the claimant did not receive the report until his summary dismissal letter dated 19 February 2024.
The tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim against the fifth respondent in time. It noted that the claimant was aware of possible proceedings, had contacted ACAS quickly, and had access to legal advice, but the claim was not filed in time because of a mistaken understanding of the relevant deadline. The complaint against the fifth respondent was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment states that the claimant's complaint against the fourth respondent was dismissed upon withdrawal, but the truncated text does not identify the complaint type. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The claim against the fifth respondent was a detriment complaint arising from alleged protected disclosures. It was dismissed because the tribunal found the claim was presented out of time and it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
15 references- s.48(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- Palmer v Southend on Sea Borough Council
- Wall's Meat Company v Khan
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Machine Tool Industry Research Association v Simpson
- Post Office v Sanhotra
- Trevelyns (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton
- Cullinane v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services Limited
- Smith v Pimlico Plumbers
- Tesco Store Limited v Greater London CAB Bureau Service Limited
- Northamptonshire County Council v Entwistle
- Ashcroft v Haberdashers ASKE
- Marks and Spencer v Williams-Ryan
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.