Case 2603718/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Nurue Whyte v Caring Hands Leicester Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2603718/2019
- Decision date
- 14 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Nurue Whyte
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Adkinson heard the matter on 14 September 2020 at Leicester, with Mr Whyte appearing in person and the respondent represented by Mr T Hussain. After hearing evidence from Mr Whyte, considering the documents, the tribunal file and the parties' oral representations, the tribunal dealt with the matter by way of oral reasons.
The tribunal held that the claimant's unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims were out of time. On that basis, it concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider them and dismissed both claims.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's application to amend the claim to add a breach of contract claim. The written record does not provide further reasons for that refusal, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claim was out of time and therefore outside its jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claim was out of time and therefore outside its jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant's application to amend the claim to add breach of contract was dismissed; the tribunal did not determine a substantive breach of contract claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.