Case 3205924/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Patel v Juniper Ventures Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3205924/2021
- Decision date
- 10 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reid Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Patel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on limitation only. Mr Patel was dismissed with immediate effect on 28 May 2021, so the primary three-month time limit expired on 27 August 2021. He contacted ACAS on 6 September 2021 and the ACAS certificate issued on 7 September 2021, which was outside the primary time limit.
The tribunal found that Mr Patel had been supported at the disciplinary hearing by a trade union representative, Ms Dobbs, and that after the appeal she told him that it was for him to take matters further and that there were time limits. The tribunal accepted that he did not necessarily know the exact length of the limit, but found that he knew there were time limits and that he unreasonably delayed in finding out more, including after speaking to a friend who gave him the ACAS contact number.
The tribunal also considered Mr Patel's evidence that back pain, medication side effects and stress made it difficult for him to act in time. It found that he had been able to continue working up to dismissal, and then worked directly for the school afterwards on an as-and-when basis, which did not support the level of cognitive impairment he claimed. It found no medical evidence of a mental health condition preventing him from taking rational steps to bring the claim.
Applying s111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996, and noting the ACAS conciliation provisions in s207B(3) and s207B(4), the tribunal held that it had been reasonably practicable for him to present the claim in time. Time was not extended, and the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal decided it was reasonably practicable for the claim to be presented in time, so it did not extend time under s111(2)(b) ERA 1996 and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim for lack of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s207B(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s207B(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.