Case 3303694/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person. For the v Mr S Khan, Director. — 2019
- Case reference
- 3303694/2019
- Decision date
- 6 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Appearances
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person. For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant said she had been employed since 2010 and remained employed when she brought claims including unfair dismissal and holiday pay. The respondent argued that she had resigned on 22 October 2018, but the tribunal reviewed the text messages, the sick notes sent on 13 November 2018, and the meeting on 2 November 2018 and found that the employment relationship had continued after October 2018.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant resigned only from the role of Designated Premises Supervisor by email of 25 November 2018, while stating that she would keep the respondent informed of her sick notes and treatment. It held that the claimant's email of 28 November 2018, in which she said she had come to the conclusion that the respondent no longer wanted her to be the manager and would send someone to collect her belongings, was the communication that brought the employment to an end. The effective date of termination was therefore 28 November 2018.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the claim was presented within the three-month time limit and that it had jurisdiction to determine it. The judgment did not decide the merits of the substantive claims or make any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary issue only. The tribunal held that the effective date of termination was 28 November 2018 and that the claim was presented in time, but it did not determine the substantive merits of the unfair dismissal claim at this hearing. | Other | — | — |
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.
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.