Case 3204997/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Addison v Westex Ltd and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 3204997/2021
- Decision date
- 10 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Appearances
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr E Addison
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant was one of 125 employees at the Bow location who was entitled to a protective award following an earlier judgment in case number 3202653/2019 and others, issued on 13 October 2020.
The Tribunal held that, pursuant to section 192 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, it did not have jurisdiction to consider the Claimant's claim for a protective award. It found that the three-month time limit expired on 17 March 2020 and that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented within that period because the Claimant did not know of the entitlement until November 2020.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant did not present the claim within a further period considered reasonable. He was told in January 2021 that he needed to present a separate claim, made initial enquiries, gave up, and did not present the claim until 10 July 2021 after speaking with former colleagues in June 2021. The claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim was for a protective award. The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 192 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- 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.