Case 3200460/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Sweeney v Marks and Spencer plc — 2021
- Case reference
- 3200460/2020
- Decision date
- 5 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Craft Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Sweeney
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the tribunal considered whether the claimant's claims of unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction of wages had been presented in time.
The tribunal found that the unfair dismissal claim had not been presented within three months beginning with the effective date of dismissal, and that the unlawful deduction of wages claim had not been presented within three months beginning with the date of payment of the wage from which the deduction was made. It also found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the claims within those time limits.
The claims were dismissed because the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to consider them for that reason.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed at a preliminary hearing because the claim was presented outside the applicable three-month time limit and the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed at a preliminary hearing because the claim was presented outside the applicable three-month time limit and the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.112(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.23(2)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
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.