Case 3303399/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 3303399/2022
- Decision date
- 21 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed on 3 September 2021 and was told she had a right of appeal. Her appeal was heard on 22 October 2021 and she received a letter on 17 November 2021 saying the dismissal was upheld. The tribunal found that the effective date of termination remained 3 September 2021 and that the appeal process did not stop time running for tribunal limitation purposes.
Applying s111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal held that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented both the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims within time. It rejected the claimant's reliance on the appeal outcome date and on Drage v Governing Body of Greenford High School, finding that this was not one of the limited cases where an appeal process changes the effective date of termination. The tribunal also said that ignorance of rights was not a defence in itself and applied Porter v Bandridge Ltd, concluding that the claimant could and should have found out about the position sooner.
The claims were therefore out of time and struck out because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them. The tribunal also refused the respondent's costs application for £1,000 plus VAT, finding that the claimant's pursuit of the claim was not shown to be unreasonable in the circumstances, including her lack of tribunal experience and her apparent reliance on assistance from Haringey Law Centre and ACAS.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim held out of time under s111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996; tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and refused to extend time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Claim held out of time under s111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996; tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time and refused to extend time. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Drage v Governing Body of Greenford High School 2000 ICR 899 CA
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd 1978 ICR 943 CA
- rule 76 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.