Case 3304951/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr A Cole v Zest at Lime Square Ltd (in liquidation) — 2024

Case reference: 3304951/2023
Decision date: 30 January 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Islam Appearances

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr A Cole

Respondent

Zest at Lime Square Ltd (in liquidation)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a preliminary hearing in public under Rule 56 on whether the claim had been brought in time. The claimant, Mr A Cole, said he was seeking a redundancy payment, notice pay and accrued holiday pay from the Insolvency Service after Zest at Lime Square Ltd entered liquidation. The Insolvency Service rejected his application in a letter dated 2 March 2023, and he presented his ET1 on 1 May 2023.

Employment Judge Islam held that the claim was within time. The judgment states that s.188(2)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996 required the tribunal to consider whether the claim was presented before the end of the three-month period beginning with the date on which the Secretary of State's decision on the application was communicated to the applicant. On that basis, the tribunal determined that the claim was brought in time. The judgment does not determine the merits of the underlying substantive claims or record any monetary award.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Preliminary issue only. The tribunal held the claim was presented in time under s.188(2)(a) ERA 1996. The underlying substantive matters referred to in the judgment were redundancy payment, notice pay and accrued holiday pay, but their merits were not determined in this decision.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.