Case 3201635/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Sarr v DSG Retail Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3201635/2019
- Decision date
- 25 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Lewis Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Sarr
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed on 21 January 2019. The ordinary three-month time limit expired on 20 April 2019. Early conciliation began on 22 April 2019 and ended on 22 May 2019, and the claim was presented on 20 June 2019. Because early conciliation was started after the ordinary time limit had expired, the tribunal found that the statutory extension did not apply.
The claimant said he believed the claim was in time and relied on advice from Citizens Advice and ACAS, including advice to exhaust the internal appeal process. The tribunal accepted that he believed the claim had been brought in time, but found that this resulted from an error in calculating the limitation date. It found that he knew of the right to claim unfair dismissal, knew that tribunal proceedings involved time limits, had taken advice and had done his own research.
The tribunal concluded that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the complaint in time. He had not shown a physical impediment, ill health, or another reason making timely presentation not reasonably practicable. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed as out of time under section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment concerns a preliminary hearing on whether the unfair dismissal claim was presented in time. Although the listing categories referenced breach of contract and unlawful deduction from wages, the judgment only adjudicates an unfair dismissal complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.207B(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.207B(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- reasonable feasibility
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Bodha v Hampshire Area Health Authority
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum Ltd
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.