Case 3201710/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Justice v JD Sports Fashion plc — 2019
- Case reference
- 3201710/2019
- Decision date
- 5 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Taylor Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Justice
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim form was received on 8 July 2019 and claimed unfair dismissal. The respondent submitted that the claim was out of time because the claimant had been dismissed with immediate effect on 7 March 2019 and would have needed to commence ACAS early conciliation by 6 June 2019 to protect his limitation position.
The final hearing was converted to a preliminary hearing to decide whether the claim had been brought in time and whether it should be permitted to proceed. The claimant did not attend and was not represented. Tribunal office enquiries recorded that the claimant said he expected a representative to attend and had been told he was not required, but no notice of acting had been received and no representative contacted or attended the tribunal.
Applying Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the tribunal considered the available information about the claimant's absence. Given the purpose of the hearing and the absence of the claimant or any representative, the tribunal dismissed the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed after the claimant failed to attend or be represented at a preliminary hearing listed to consider time limits and jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.