Case 3300388/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr Brotherton — 2021
- Case reference
- 3300388/2021
- Decision date
- 8 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smeaton Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr P Digby, brought a single complaint of unfair dismissal against Amey Services Limited. The hearing took place at Watford by CVP before Employment Judge Smeaton on 8 November 2021, with Mr Digby appearing in person and Mr Brotherton of Croner Group Limited appearing for the respondent.
The Tribunal decided that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint because it had been presented outside the time limit in s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment states that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within the time limit.
The Tribunal also found, in the alternative, that the claim was not presented within a reasonable period after the expiry of the time limit. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore dismissed. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint because the claim was presented outside the time limit in s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996; it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, and alternatively it was not presented within a reasonable period thereafter. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.111(2) 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.