Case 3303708/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Srikanth Kanapathipillai v Morrisons — 2025
- Case reference
- 3303708/2024
- Decision date
- 10 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kelly
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Srikanth Kanapathipillai
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Kelly, sitting alone at Watford by CVP on 18 August 2025, dismissed Mr Srikanth Kanapathipillai’s claim against Morrisons because the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider it. The Tribunal found that the claim was started after the due date under s111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Tribunal held that the claimant had not shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present the complaint before the end of the three-month period beginning with the effective date of termination of employment. No remedy was awarded because the claim was dismissed on limitation/jurisdiction grounds.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claim was presented after the due date under s111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996; the claimant did not show that it was not reasonably practicable to present the complaint before the end of the three-month period beginning with the effective date of termination. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- not reasonably practicable
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.