Case 3302402/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Stephenson (CAB representative) For the v Mr Rhodes (Solicitor) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3302402/2023
- Decision date
- 15 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge King
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Stephenson (CAB representative) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge King sat alone at Watford on 11 September 2023. The written judgment records that the claimant was represented by Mr Stephenson of the CAB and the respondent by Mr Rhodes, solicitor. No lay members are listed.
The tribunal dismissed the redundancy payment claim following the claimant's withdrawal of that claim, which the judgment says had been issued in error. It also dismissed the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims because they had been presented outside the primary time limits and the tribunal held it was reasonably practicable for them to have been brought in time, so the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear them.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the redundancy payment claim was dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant as it was issued in error. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claim was presented outside the primary time limits and that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been brought in time, so the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held that the claim was presented outside the primary time limits and that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been brought in time, so the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear it. | 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.