Case 3303848/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 3303848/2020
- Decision date
- 31 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Lewis Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn reconsideration, the tribunal revoked its earlier rejection of the claim against respondent 1 and recorded that the claim against R1 was accepted as of 1 September 2020. Despite that procedural correction, the tribunal dismissed all claims against both respondents.
The dismissal was on time-limit grounds. The written record states that the claims had been presented out of time and that it was reasonably practicable for them to have been presented within time. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed as out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claims to have been presented within time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed as out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claims to have been presented within time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed as out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claims to have been presented within time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Dismissed as out of time; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claims to have been presented within time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.