Case 3201176/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Thomson v Poundland Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3201176/2019
- Decision date
- 30 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Thomson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant was dismissed on 7 December 2018 and brought a complaint of unfair dismissal. He contacted ACAS, with early conciliation running from 15 January 2019 to 6 February 2019. The Tribunal calculated that the ordinary time limit, extended by the 22-day conciliation period, expired on 28 March 2019, while the ET1 received by the Tribunal was presented on 23 April 2019.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant had made a genuine attempt to submit a claim form by post on 15 February 2019, but that it was likely sent to the wrong postcode and was not received by the Employment Tribunal. The Claimant later contacted the Tribunal in March and understood that he needed to submit a claim online, but the online ET1 was not submitted until 23 April 2019.
The Tribunal found there was no physical impediment preventing timely presentation, that the Claimant's partner knew of the three-month time limit, and that no explanation had been given for the further delay after the March contact with the Tribunal. It concluded that it had been reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, did not extend time, and held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed because it was presented out of time and the Tribunal found it had been reasonably practicable to present it within the extended statutory time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Walls Meat Company Limited v Khan 1979 ICR 52
- Singh v Post Office 1973 ICR 437
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliance Limited 1974 ICR 53
- Marks & Spencer PLC v Williams-Ryan 2005 IRLR 562
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.