Case 3304032/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 3304032/2020
- Decision date
- 24 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smeaton Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely by Employment Judge Smeaton on 17 February 2021. The Tribunal referred to an 81-page bundle and an email from the Claimant containing six paragraphs which he asked to stand as his witness statement. The Claimant appeared in person and the Respondent was represented by Ms C Goodman, Counsel.
The Tribunal did not determine the merits of the unfair dismissal or breach of contract complaints. It held that both complaints were presented outside the applicable time limits, and that it was reasonably practicable for them to have been presented within time. On that basis, the Tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to consider either complaint and dismissed the claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the complaint because it was presented outside the time limit in s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996, and it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the complaint because it was presented outside the time limit in article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1996/1623, and it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1996/1623
- reasonably practicable to have presented it within the time limit
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.