Case 3300053/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Brewster v Stamford Endowed Schools — 2024
- Case reference
- 3300053/2024
- Decision date
- 4 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchings Representation
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Brewster
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr R Brewster brought a claim of unfair dismissal against Stamford Endowed Schools. Employment Judge Hutchings dismissed the claim because it was presented after the expiry of the statutory time limit in section 111(2) and (2A) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found that the time limit could not be extended because it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim within time. On that basis, the claim was not considered on its substantive merits and was dismissed as out of time.
The judgment records that the reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed as presented out of time. The tribunal found the statutory time limit in section 111(2) and (2A) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 had expired and that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim in time, so the time limit could not be extended. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 111(2) and (2A) 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.