Case 2600915/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2600915/2022
- Decision date
- 5 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks Appearances
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt an open preliminary hearing in Nottingham on 5 August 2022, Employment Judge Fredericks heard the claimant in person and the respondent, represented by Mr S Sanders of counsel. By consent, the respondent’s name was amended to Sports Direct.com Retail Limited, the parties agreeing that this was the claimant’s employer.
The claimant’s unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it: the claim had been presented out of time. The judgment records that the full reasons for that decision were given orally at the hearing.
The claimant’s claim for a redundancy payment was also dismissed. The Tribunal found that the claim was not well founded because it fell foul of section 164 Employment Rights Act 1996. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim as it was presented out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed as not well founded because it fell foul of section 164 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 164 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.