Case 3303009/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Nr M Isaiah, lay representative For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3303009/2024
- Decision date
- 28 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge French Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Nr M Isaiah, lay representative For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on time limits in an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. The claimant presented the ET1 on 13 March 2024. The tribunal found that the effective date of termination was 16 November 2023, using the dismissal letter dated 14 November 2023 and deemed service by first class post. On that basis, the claim should have been presented by 15 February 2024 and was out of time when it was filed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed at a preliminary hearing because the claim was presented out of time and it was found to have been reasonably practicable to present it within the primary limitation period. The tribunal also found that, even if time had been extended, the ET1 was not presented within a further reasonable period. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser
- Wall’s Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Marks & Spencer v Williams-Ryan
- Cambridge and Peterborough Foundation NHS Trust v Crouchman
- University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust v Williams
- Cullinane v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services Ltd
- Nolan v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services
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.