Case 3204232/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Robertson v Safety Signs UK Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3204232/2022
- Decision date
- 25 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Brien Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Robertson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary issue hearing on 25 November 2022 before Employment Judge O'Brien at East London Hearing Centre, the tribunal dealt with Mr A Robertson's unfair dismissal complaint against Safety Signs UK Limited. The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim was presented outside the time limit in s111(2)(a) ERA 1996 and refused to extend time under s111(2)(b), so the complaint was dismissed.
The tribunal also held that the claim for unauthorised deductions of wages was out of time under s23(2) ERA 1996 and refused to extend time under s23(4). The breach of contract claim was presented outside the time limit in article 7(a) of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 and time was not extended under article 7(c), so that claim was dismissed. The Equality Act 2010 complaints were dismissed under rule 52 following the claimant's withdrawal under rule 51; the judgment does not identify the protected characteristic or any separate Equality Act heads.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Presented outside the time limit in s111(2)(a) ERA 1996; the tribunal refused to extend time under s111(2)(b). | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unauthorised deductions of wages was out of time under s23(2) ERA 1996; the tribunal refused to extend time under s23(4). | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim was presented outside the time limit in article 7(a) of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994; time was not extended under article 7(c). | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Equality Act 2010 complaints were dismissed under rule 52 following the claimant's withdrawal under rule 51; the judgment does not specify the protected characteristic or identify separate Equality Act heads. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s111(2)(a) ERA 1996
- s111(2)(b) ERA 1996
- s23(2) ERA 1996
- s23(4) ERA 1996
- article 7(a) Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- article 7(c) Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- rule 51
- rule 52
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.