Case 3200018/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr D Singh v Wanis Management Services LLP — 2023

Case reference: 3200018/2023
Decision date: 2 August 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Reid Representation
Venue: East London Hearing Centre

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr D Singh

Respondent

Wanis Management Services LLP

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr D Singh brought a claim of unfair dismissal against Wanis Management Services LLP. The tribunal heard the matter at East London Hearing Centre on 2 August 2023 before Employment Judge Reid, with Mr Singh appearing in person and supported by his sister-in-law Ms S Kaur, and the respondent represented by counsel.

The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim was presented outside the three-month time limit in s111(2)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996, as extended by s207B(3) Employment Rights Act 1996 for the ACAS conciliation period. It found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the claim in time and therefore declined to extend time under s111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996.

Because the tribunal would not extend time, it concluded that it could not hear the unfair dismissal claim and dismissed it. The judgment records that the respondent wished to make a costs application, but there was insufficient time and any application would be made after receipt of the written reasons requested by the respondent.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Presented outside the three-month time limit under s111(2)(a) ERA 1996. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and declined to extend time under s111(2)(b) ERA 1996.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.