Case 3203200/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Merissa Hoyte v Barclays Execution Services Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3203200/2022
- Decision date
- 7 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dias-Patel Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Merissa Hoyte
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered a preliminary time-limit issue in relation to the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim. The claimant’s employment ended on 6 December 2021. She first contacted ACAS on 3 March 2022 and received an early conciliation certificate on 13 April 2022, but that certificate named the respondent incorrectly. She then contacted ACAS again on 21 April 2022, received a replacement certificate on 12 May 2022, and presented her ET1 on 14 May 2022.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had tried to obtain advice from her trade union and had also made some effort to seek help from Citizens Advice. It found, however, that although she was not fully aware of the legal rules, it was reasonably practicable for her to obtain effective advice either before contacting ACAS or urgently after noticing the error on the first certificate. The tribunal concluded that the claim had been presented outside the primary time limit under section 111(2) ERA 1996, that the test for extension was not met, and that the tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the claim.
On that basis, the unfair dismissal claim was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success because it was out of time.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim was presented outside the primary time limit in s.111(2) ERA 1996, that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, and therefore the tribunal lacked jurisdiction and struck the claim out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.111(2) ERA 1996
- "reasonably practicable" test
- Palmer v Southend on Sea BC
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances 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.