Case 3204784/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Hadjipaulis v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3204784/2021
- Decision date
- 18 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Hadjipaulis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Royal Mail Group Plc. The matter was heard by telephone at East London Hearing Centre on 18 November 2021 before Employment Judge Burgher.
The tribunal found that the complaint had not been presented within the three-month time limit provided by section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also found that it had been reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim within that time limit.
On that basis, the tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint and dismissed the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint because it found it lacked jurisdiction: the claim was not presented within the three-month time limit under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.