Case 3301011/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend For the v Mrs H Sheehan, Respondent’s HR Manager — 2022
- Case reference
- 3301011/2021
- Decision date
- 10 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Forde
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 3 March 2022, Employment Judge Forde sat alone and decided to proceed in the claimant’s absence after the claimant emailed the Tribunal saying he would not attend and had sought postponement. The sole issue identified for determination was whether the claimant’s claims were out of time. The claim form, presented on 5 February 2021, pursued notice pay and holiday pay following termination of employment.
The Tribunal accepted that the employment ended on 9 September 2020. On that basis, the three-month time limit for bringing the claims expired on 9 December 2020. The ACAS early conciliation notification was received on 16 December 2020 and the certificate was issued on 6 January 2021, so the claim had already been lodged beyond the statutory time limit. The Tribunal found no evidence explaining the delay, concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear the notice pay and holiday pay claims, and dismissed the claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay was dismissed because the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim, which had been presented out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claim was dismissed because the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim, which had been presented out of time. | 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.