Case 2503660/2019 · Employment Tribunal
in person For v Eden Global Infrastructure Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2503660/2019
- Decision date
- 13 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Garnon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing by telephone on 13 July 2020, Employment Judge Garnon sat alone. Mr Scott Wilson appeared in person and the respondent did not attend. The claim form had been presented on 24 October 2019 and included claims for notice pay, holiday pay, arrears of pay and unfair dismissal.
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. The tribunal recorded that he had said he was not claiming unfair dismissal in response to the earlier rule 27 notice, and the judgment therefore treated that claim as withdrawn. No merits finding was made on the remaining claims at this hearing.
The tribunal then considered time limits for the notice pay, holiday pay and arrears of pay claims. Applying the not reasonably practicable test and the extension of time provisions for Early Conciliation under s.207B ERA 1996, and referring to Porter v Bandridge, Palmer v Southend on Sea Borough Council, Wall's Meat Company v Khan, Riley v Tesco Stores and Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd, the tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence about an earlier online ET1, the absence of any response, the later resubmission, and the ACAS EC number problem.
The tribunal found that the claimant was not at fault, that he was reasonably ignorant of the correct process, and that the delay was explained by the initial electronic filing problem and later pandemic-related delay. It therefore held that the remaining claims were presented with such further time as was reasonable and would be considered.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant at the preliminary hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim. The tribunal held that the late presentation was excused because it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the ordinary time limit and it was presented within a reasonable further period; merits were not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Arrears of pay claim. The tribunal held that the late presentation was excused because it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the ordinary time limit and it was presented within a reasonable further period; merits were not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claim. The tribunal held that the late presentation was excused because it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within the ordinary time limit and it was presented within a reasonable further period; merits were not determined. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- not reasonably practicable
- s.207B ERA 1996
- Porter v Bandridge
- Palmer v Southend on Sea Borough Council
- Wall's Meat Company v Khan
- Riley v Tesco Stores
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
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.