Case 3307427/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Imhotep Plaster Mouldings Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3307427/2023
- Decision date
- 7 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for the respondent from 27 July 2010 until 27 August 2021, when the business ceased trading after the director died. The claim was filed on 26 June 2023, after early conciliation ran from 22 June 2023 to 26 June 2023. The respondent did not attend and did not respond to the claim.
For the notice pay and unpaid holiday claims, the tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that, because of the circumstances surrounding her husband's death and her mental ill health, it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim by 26 November 2021. It also accepted that the claimant had poor mental health and physical health problems during the relevant period.
However, the tribunal found that the position had changed by around February 2022. It relied in particular on an email chain between the claimant and the government redundancy scheme dated 28 January 2022 to 2 February 2022, in which the claimant said she was trying to close down the company and asked how to obtain holiday and redundancy pay. The tribunal held that there was no evidence preventing her from filing a claim between February 2022 and June 2023, and concluded that the notice pay and holiday pay claims were out of time and outside its jurisdiction under section 23 ERA 1996 and article 7 of the 1994 Order.
The redundancy payment claim was also dismissed as out of time. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had not made a written request for redundancy pay to the company and had not presented a tribunal claim within the first six months after termination, or in the following six months. It held that it had no jurisdiction to consider an extension beyond 12 months from the effective date of termination under section 164 ERA 1996.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim dismissed as out of time under section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996 and article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. The tribunal accepted it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim by 26 November 2021, but found it would have been reasonably practicable by around February 2022 and the claim was not filed until 26 June 2023. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Unpaid holiday pay claim dismissed as out of time under section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996 and article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. The tribunal applied the same timeliness reasoning as for notice pay and held there was no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Redundancy payment claim dismissed under section 164 Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant had not made a written claim to the employer and had not filed a tribunal claim within the relevant six-month periods, so the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to extend time beyond 12 months from termination. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- not reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- article 7 Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- section 164 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.