Case 3201437/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Edmunds v London Borough of Tower Hamlets — 2019
- Case reference
- 3201437/2018
- Decision date
- 11 February 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Prichard Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Edmunds
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant had previously brought proceedings while still employed, including complaints of race and sex discrimination, after an ACAS early conciliation process in 2017. He was later given notice of dismissal for alleged redundancy on 14 December 2017, with dismissal taking effect on 25 March 2018. He began a second ACAS early conciliation process on 5 June 2018 and presented a second claim on 9 July 2018.
The respondent argued that the dismissal claim was the same "matter" as the earlier proceedings, so the second early conciliation certificate could not extend time and the claim was out of time. The tribunal considered authorities on early conciliation and amendments, including Garau, Science Warehouse, Drake, Romero, Compass Group and Selkent.
Employment Judge Prichard held that the respondent-initiated dismissal for alleged redundancy was not sufficiently linked to the subject matter of the earlier claim and was a different "matter" for section 18A(1) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. The tribunal therefore held that claim 3201437/2018 was not out of time. The judge added that, if wrong on that point, he would have exercised discretion to allow a late amendment. The final hearing remained listed for consideration of all issues in both claim forms.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal decided a preliminary jurisdiction/time point only: the redundancy dismissal claim was a different "matter" for section 18A(1) purposes and the claim presented on 9 July 2018 was not out of time. The substantive unfair dismissal claim was left for the final hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 18A(1) Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 140B Equality Act
- rule 29 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- Selkent Bus Co v Moore amendment discretion
- Garau principle
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.