Case 3203334/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M A Kalam v London Borough of Havering — 2021
- Case reference
- 3203334/2021
- Decision date
- 20 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Elgot Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M A Kalam
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M A Kalam brought claims against London Borough of Havering for unfair dismissal, identified in the judgment as whether by reason of redundancy or by reason of a TUPE transfer, failure to pay notice pay, and unpaid wages. The hearing was conducted remotely by Cloud Video Platform on 20 October 2021 before Employment Judge Elgot.
The tribunal dismissed all the claims because it had no jurisdiction to hear them. The judgment records that the claims were lodged outside the relevant time limits and that the judge was not satisfied it was not reasonably practicable for the Claimant to present them before the end of the three month period. No remedy or monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was pleaded as whether by reason of redundancy or by reason of a TUPE transfer; it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was presented out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment described this as a claim for failure to pay notice pay and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction because it was presented out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment described this as a claim for unpaid wages and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction because it was presented out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.