Case 3202644/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Marcus Campbell v Tesco Maintenance Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3202644/2019
- Decision date
- 13 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge John Crosfill
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Marcus Campbell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Campbell was dismissed on 12 August 2019 after a disciplinary meeting about WhatsApp messages said to have been of a homophobic nature. A dismissal letter followed on the same day, and his appeal was heard on 10 September 2019. He presented his ET1 on 14 November 2019 and the tribunal treated the only claim being pursued as unfair dismissal.
The tribunal held that the effective date of termination was 12 August 2019, or at latest 13 August 2019, and that the claim was therefore outside the three-month time limit under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Contacting ACAS on 14 November 2019 was too late to obtain the benefit of the early conciliation extension, because the deadline had already passed by 11 November 2019.
Applying the two-stage time limit approach, the tribunal considered whether it had not been reasonably practicable for the claim to be presented in time. It rejected the claimant's reliance on looking for work, lack of experience of the tribunal system, dyslexia, and his mistaken belief that time ran from the appeal. The tribunal found that he knew there was a time limit, had time after the appeal was rejected to research the position, and had not shown that any depression or other difficulty prevented him from issuing the claim earlier.
Because the tribunal was not satisfied that it had been not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, it did not go on to the second stage of asking whether the claim had then been presented within a reasonable further period. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore struck out for want of jurisdiction, and no award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Presented out of time under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction and struck out the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- not reasonably practicable test
- two-stage time limit test
- J Sainsbury Ltd v Savage
- Palmer and Saunders v Southend-On-Sea Borough Council
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum Ltd
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Avon County Council v Haywood-Hicks
- Northamptonshire County Council v Entwhistle
- Westward Circuits Ltd v Read
- Cullinane v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services 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.