Case 2601803/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Azzouz v Samworth Brothers Limited t/a Kettleby Foods — 2022
- Case reference
- 2601803/2021
- Decision date
- 7 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brewer Representation
- Venue
- Midlands East Tribunal via Cloud Video Platform
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Azzouz
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs N Azzouz was employed by Samworth Brothers Limited t/a Kettleby Foods from 10 June 2005 until her summary dismissal on 31 March 2021. Her appeal was heard on 19 May 2021 and the appeal outcome was sent in writing on 21 May 2021. She contacted ACAS for early conciliation on 29 July 2021, received an early conciliation certificate on 20 August 2021, and presented her ET1 on 24 August 2021.
The tribunal identified the issue as whether the unfair dismissal claim had been brought in time and, if not, whether time should be extended under s.111(2) ERA 1996. It reviewed the authorities on the primary three-month limit, the meaning of "reasonably practicable", ignorance of rights and time limits, and the need to act within a further reasonable period where that test is met.
On the facts, the tribunal found that the claimant had a reasonable standard of English, had been involved in her appeal without an interpreter, and was aware of her right to complain of unfair dismissal and the time limit by around 21 May 2021. It rejected her account that ACAS had been unavailable during lockdown, found that she had not tried to contact ACAS earlier, and noted that she had access to an independent trade union but did not seek its advice. The tribunal concluded that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to bring the claim within the primary time limit, so it did not need to consider whether any extra time taken was reasonable. The claim was therefore dismissed because the tribunal lacked jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the claim was presented out of time and that it did not have jurisdiction to hear it under s.111(2) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Sterling v United Learning Trust
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser
- Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton
- Drewery v Carphone Warehouse Ltd
- DHL Supply Chain Ltd v Fazackerley
- University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust v Williams
- Cullinane v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services Ltd
- Nolan v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services
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.