Case 3300329/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3300329/2024
- Decision date
- 10 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr O Robinson brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. The case was heard at Cambridge on 9 May 2024 before Employment Judge Tynan, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by Ms R Levene, Counsel.
The tribunal did not determine the unfair dismissal complaint on its merits. It found that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented by no later than 14 September 2023, which was the primary limitation period for bringing the claim. Because the claim was not presented by that date, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the complaint.
The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore dismissed. No monetary award was made. The written judgment is dated 10 May 2024 and the record notes that it was sent to the parties on 25 June 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed on limitation grounds. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented by no later than 14 September 2023, and therefore it had no jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint because it was not presented by that date. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.