Case 2602012/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Cebers v Montgomery Facilities Management Limited and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 2602012/2020
- Decision date
- 1 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dyal
- Venue
- By videolink
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr A Cebers
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for Montgomery Facilities Management Limited at SportsDirect.com Retail Limited’s warehouse and had a workplace accident on 18 December 2019. He later said he made complaints about health and safety, including the response to that accident, and that Sports Direct pressured Montgomery to dismiss him or remove him from the site. The only issue determined at this hearing was whether the claim against Sports Direct, brought as a detriment claim under s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996, was in time. The tribunal treated time as running from 6 March 2020, so the claim presented on 19 June 2020 was outside the primary limitation period.
The claimant argued that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim earlier because he did not know until 19 June 2020 that he could bring a claim against Sports Direct, and because anxiety and depression had affected him after the accident. The tribunal accepted that he had significant mental health difficulties during the limitation period, but it preferred his oral evidence to his witness statement on the key limitation issue. It found that he had been told by ACAS from about February 2020 that he could bring a claim against Sports Direct, and rejected his written account that he only learned this in June.
Applying the statutory test in s.48(3) ERA 1996 and the authorities cited in the reasons, including Porter v Bandridge Ltd, Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council, Dedman v British Building & Engineering Appliances Ltd, Marks & Spencer v Williams-Ryan and Cullinane v Balfour Beatty Engineering, the tribunal concluded that it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. It also rejected the suggestion that an ACAS error explained the delay. As no explanation for the late presentation remained, the tribunal refused to extend time and dismissed the claim against Sports Direct for lack of jurisdiction. Because that limitation issue was decisive, the further substantive issues did not arise.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Claim under s.47B ERA 1996 against the second respondent was dismissed because it was presented out of time and the tribunal was not satisfied that time should be extended. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.48(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Dedman v British Building & Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Marks & Spencer v Williams-Ryan
- Cullinane v Balfour Beatty Engineering
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.