Case 2602806/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Sleath v Print Talk Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2602806/2021
- Decision date
- 5 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Varnam Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Sleath
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss R Sleath's claims against Print Talk Ltd were heard at Nottingham via CVP on 31 March 2022 before Employment Judge Varnam. The claimant did not appear and was not represented; the respondent was represented by its director, Mr G Molyneux.
The Tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because it had been presented out of time and the Tribunal was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to present it within the relevant time limit. The same limitation reasoning led to dismissal of the claim for notice pay, which the judgment records as a claim for notice pay and which was also treated as out of time.
The statutory redundancy payment claim was dismissed because it was presented after both the primary time limit in section 164(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the secondary time limit in section 164(2) of that Act. The Tribunal also found that it would not be just and equitable to extend time. The claim for unspecified other payments was likewise dismissed as out of time because the Tribunal was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to present it within the time limit. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because it was presented out of time and the Tribunal was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to present it within the time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment records this as a claim for notice pay; it was dismissed as out of time and the Tribunal was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to present it within the time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed because it was presented after the expiry of both the primary time limit in section 164(1) ERA 1996 and the secondary time limit in section 164(2) ERA 1996; the Tribunal was also not satisfied that it would be just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Recorded in the judgment as a claim for '(unspecified) other payments'; dismissed as out of time because the Tribunal was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to present it within the time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- reasonably practicable to present within the time limit
- section 164(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 164(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- just and equitable to extend time
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.