Case 3308246/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3308246/2023
- Decision date
- 17 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrew Clarke
- Venue
- Cambridge via CVP
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a sole claim for unfair dismissal. The tribunal found that the effective date of termination was 17 March 2023, so the primary limitation period expired on 16 June 2023.
The tribunal found that the claimant knew of the right to bring an employment tribunal claim and had been told the method for calculating the three-month time limit. It found that it was feasible for him to bring the claim within the primary limitation period and that he had chosen to prioritise other matters.
The tribunal was not satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time. It also found that, even if that conclusion was wrong, the claimant had waited unreasonably long before presenting the claim on 21 July 2023, so the claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The sole claim was dismissed because the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction: the claim was presented outside the primary limitation period and the claimant had not shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- reasonable period thereafter
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.