Case 3202967/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Goualin v Mitie Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3202967/2019
- Decision date
- 29 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Goualin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary issue was whether the claimant's claims for unfair dismissal and accrued but unpaid holiday pay had been presented in time, and if not whether time should be extended. The Tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed during a telephone conversation on 8 July 2019, rather than on 13 July 2019 when he received the dismissal letter. On that basis, the extended primary limitation period expired on 1 December 2019 and the ET1 presented on 3 December 2019 was two days out of time.
The Tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that he had not appreciated the adjusted limitation deadline, that he had been advised to pursue the internal appeal first, and that his health affected his ability to present the claim near the end of the limitation period. In particular, it accepted evidence about the effects of stopping medication around 26 November 2019 and concluded that it was not reasonably practicable for him to issue proceedings by 1 December 2019.
Because the claim was presented only two days after the primary limitation period expired, the Tribunal held that it had been presented within a reasonable further period. It therefore decided that it had jurisdiction to consider both the unfair dismissal claim and the accrued holiday pay claim on their merits, with directions for a later final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing determined time limit/jurisdiction only. The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal claim on its merits; the merits were not determined in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment describes this as a claim for accrued but unpaid holiday pay. Preliminary hearing determined time limit/jurisdiction only. The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to consider the accrued holiday claim on its merits; the merits were not determined in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Working Time Regulations 1998
- reasonably practicable
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1984] ICR 372
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd [1999] ICR 1202
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd [1978] ICR 943
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.