Case 2600219/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Hackett v G4S Secure Solutions (UK) Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2600219/2019
- Decision date
- 1 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Hackett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim of unfair dismissal only. The hearing was converted to decide whether the tribunal had jurisdiction because the claim appeared to have been presented out of time.
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed on 4 September 2018, when he was told that the respondent had decided to dismiss him. He contacted ACAS and received an early conciliation certificate on 11 December 2018. The tribunal found that a second ACAS certificate had no effect on the limitation period.
Taking account of the early conciliation extension, the tribunal found that the claim should have been presented by 11 January 2019. The claimant presented it on 23 January 2019. Although the tribunal accepted that the claimant genuinely believed he had until that date, it found that this was not sufficient to show that it had not been reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. The tribunal therefore held that it had no jurisdiction and dismissed the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because it was presented out of time and the tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction to hear it. The merits of the dismissal were not adjudicated. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs v Garau [2017] ICR 1121
- reasonably practicable
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.