Case 2502204/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Wearmouth v Hartlepool Borough Council — 2019
- Case reference
- 2502204/2019
- Decision date
- 28 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shore Representation
- Venue
- Teesside Justice Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Wearmouth
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing on 28 October 2019, Employment Judge Shore considered Mr A Wearmouth's unfair dismissal claim against Hartlepool Borough Council. The tribunal found that the claim was not presented within the period prescribed by section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within the prescribed period.
On that basis, the tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim. The unfair dismissal claim was struck out in its entirety pursuant to Rule 37(1)(a) of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim was not presented within the period prescribed by s.111(2) ERA 1996 and that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time. It therefore found that it lacked jurisdiction and struck out the claim in its entirety under Rule 37(1)(a). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- Rule 37(1)(a) Schedule 1 Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.