Case 3301388/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Gary Martin, the claimant in person For the v Ms. Caroline Eccles- London Borough of Harrow — 2022
- Case reference
- 3301388/2022
- Decision date
- 13 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Daley Representation
- Venue
- Watford- video link
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. Gary Martin, the claimant in person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a breach of contract claim against Ms Tracy Connage. Employment Judge Daley held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the claim. The judgment records that, under Article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, any such claim had to be presented within three months beginning with the effective date of termination, which was 31 March 2021, and the claim was not brought within that time limit.
The Tribunal also noted that the claim was brought against Ms Tracy Connage, who was not a party to the contract. On that basis, the claim was dismissed. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim because it was presented outside the 3-month time limit under Article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, with the effective date of termination stated as 31 March 2021. The judgment also noted that the claim was brought against Ms Tracy Connage, who was not a party to the contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.