Case 2502039/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Foster v National Holidays Limited (in administration) VIDEO PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING Heard: Remotely (by video link) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2502039/2020
- Decision date
- 21 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Foster
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Foster worked as a coach driver for National Holidays Limited from 26 July 2017 until 22 May 2020, when the respondent entered administration and staff were told they were dismissed with immediate effect for redundancy. He started early conciliation on 4 November 2020 and presented his ET1 on 5 November 2020. The tribunal found that the effective date of termination was 22 May 2020 and that the three-month time limit expired at midnight on 21 August 2020.
For both the protective award claim and the breach of contract claim, the tribunal considered whether it was not reasonably practicable to present the claims in time. Mr Foster said he had not been given prior notice of the announcement, that he had contacted the Redundancy Payments Service for statutory redundancy and notice pay, and that he had tried to instruct solicitors in July 2020. He also said he was told by a manager that he had to wait three months and later received further advice from colleagues and Citizens Advice before contacting ACAS.
The tribunal found that Mr Foster was aware of the time limit in July 2020, because he said a former colleague told him about the three-month limit. It also found that he attempted to instruct solicitors in July 2020 and that he produced no evidence of any medical reason preventing him from presenting the claims in time. The tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for him to have presented the claims by 21 August 2020.
Both claims were therefore struck out as out of time, and the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear them. The judgment noted that there was empathy for Mr Foster's position and that the protective award claim had merit, but that the tribunal had no discretion to extend time on the facts found.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim under Article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Act (England and Wales) Order 1994; the tribunal found it was out of time and outside jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Protective award claim under section 189(1) TULRCA 1992; the tribunal found it was not presented within time and that it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- reasonably practicable
- section 189(5) TULRCA 1992
- Article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Act (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.