Case 3220504/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D. Carabott v London Borough of Newham — 2023
- Case reference
- 3220504/2020
- Decision date
- 29 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Massarella Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms C. Edwards, Miss N. Murphy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D. Carabott
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered a preliminary jurisdictional issue after the Respondent produced evidence that the dismissal letter had been emailed to the Claimant on 10 July 2020, as well as posted. The Tribunal found that email was sent to an established personal email address, that the Claimant was expecting an outcome around that time, and that he knew he had been summarily dismissed by 11 July 2020 at the latest.
Applying the authorities on the effective date of termination, the Tribunal found that time began to run on 11 July 2020. The Claimant therefore had to notify ACAS by 10 October 2020, but did not do so until 12 October 2020, and the ET1 was presented on 10 December 2020. The claims were therefore out of time.
The Tribunal then considered whether time should be extended under the reasonably practicable test. It found that the Claimant knew of his right to bring claims and of the three-month time limit, did not have a cogent explanation for waiting until the end of the limitation period to contact ACAS, and was not prevented by ill-health from doing so. It concluded that it was reasonably practicable to present the claims in time, so the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the claims.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The ordinary unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction: it was presented outside the statutory time limit and it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment refers to automatically unfair dismissal by reason of whistleblowing and PIDA pre-dismissal detriment claims. They were dismissed on jurisdictional time-limit grounds, not on their merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Trade union | The judgment refers to automatically unfair dismissal by reason of trade union activities and trade union pre-dismissal detriment claims. They were dismissed on jurisdictional time-limit grounds, not on their merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Listed as part of the case categories and dismissed with all claims for lack of jurisdiction due to time limits; the judgment does not separately analyse the substance of this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Listed as part of the case categories and dismissed with all claims for lack of jurisdiction due to time limits; the judgment does not separately analyse the substance of this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Listed as part of the case categories and dismissed with all claims for lack of jurisdiction due to time limits; the judgment does not separately analyse the substance of this claim. |
Legal tests applied
8 references- balance of probabilities
- s.97(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Gisda Cyf v Barratt [2010] ICR 1475
- Brown v Southall & Knight [1980] ICR 617
- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable test
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1984] ICR 372
- Walls Meat Co Ltd v Khan [1979] ICR 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.