Case 3301822/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 3301822/2020
- Decision date
- 14 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wyeth
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Barlow brought a wrongful dismissal complaint, described in the judgment as a breach of contract claim, against Carolyn Moore trading as Charity Link. Employment Judge Wyeth, sitting alone at Watford on 14 October 2020, held that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim because it had been presented before ACAS Early Conciliation had concluded and before the certificate was issued on 20 January 2020, contrary to s18A(8) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996.
The judgment records, in the alternative, that the wrongful dismissal claim would be struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success. No monetary remedy was awarded. The written record also notes that written reasons would not be provided unless a request was made within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the wrongful dismissal (breach of contract) complaint because it was issued before ACAS Early Conciliation had concluded and before the certificate was issued on 20 January 2020, contrary to s18A(8) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. In the alternative, the claim was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s18A(8) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.