Case 2502013/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Costello v North Tyneside Council — 2024
- Case reference
- 2502013/2023
- Decision date
- 17 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Costello
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed Mr R Costello's claims against North Tyneside Council for unfair dismissal, notice pay, holiday pay and a redundancy payment. The hearing took place remotely by video before Employment Judge Arullendran on 17 January 2024, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by counsel.
The unfair dismissal, notice pay and holiday pay claims were each dismissed because they were not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal found that it had been reasonably practicable for each claim to have been presented in time.
The redundancy payment claim was also dismissed. The tribunal recorded that the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and that the claimant had not satisfied any of the requirements in section 164(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so he was not entitled to a redundancy payment.
No monetary award or remedy was recorded. The judgment states that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes this as a notice pay claim. It was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed because the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and the claimant had not satisfied any of the requirements in section 164(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 164(1) 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.