Case 3309380/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. S. R. Binns v King Lifting Ltd. RECORD OF AN OPEN PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 3309380/2023
- Decision date
- 15 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Coll Appearances
- Venue
- Employment Tribunal at Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. S. R. Binns
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt an open preliminary hearing on 27 February 2024 before Employment Judge Coll, with the claimant self-representing and Ms. Matthews appearing for the respondent, the Tribunal heard evidence and submissions on jurisdiction. It found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant did not have the requisite two years' length of service.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Tribunal found the claimant did not have the requisite two years' length of service, so it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was presented outside the statutory time limit and the Tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment described this as a Working Time Regulations (Annual Leave) claim relating to holiday pay; it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was out of time and time was not extended. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment described this as a breach of contract claim relating to notice pay; it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was out of time and time was not extended. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment described this as a Wages Act claim relating to arrears of pay; it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was out of time and time was not extended. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.