Case 3200639/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Senghor v St Mungo Community Housing Association — 2019
- Case reference
- 3200639/2019
- Decision date
- 8 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge John Crosfill
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Senghor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr O Senghor brought a claim of unfair dismissal contrary to Section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 against St Mungo Community Housing Association. The judgment records that the claim was heard at the East London Hearing Centre on 8 August 2019 before Employment Judge John Crosfill.
The Tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim was not presented within the time limit in Section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that it was reasonably practicable for Mr Senghor to have presented the claim within the time limit imposed by subsection 111(2)(a), and that in any event he did not present the claim within a reasonable time thereafter for the purposes of subsection 111(2)(b).
On that basis, the Tribunal concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint of unfair dismissal and dismissed the proceedings. The judgment records no remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal stated it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint because it was not presented within the applicable time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable under subsection 111(2)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonable time thereafter under subsection 111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.