Case 3309731/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Byrne v Blue Yonder Technology Solutions (UK) Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3309731/2022
- Decision date
- 24 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Byrne
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Byrne brought a claim for breach of contract arising from changes to Blue Yonder Technology Solutions (UK) Limited’s pension scheme, seeking compensation for losses said to flow from those changes. The tribunal recorded that the claim could not be read as a complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages under the Employment Rights Acts 1994.
The tribunal found that it had no jurisdiction to hear the breach of contract claim because the claim form had been presented before the three-month period beginning with the effective date of termination of the contract giving rise to the claim. On that basis, the claim was presented outside the period required by article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994.
The claim was dismissed. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claim was presented before the three-month period beginning with the effective date of termination of the contract giving rise to the claim, contrary to article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. The judgment also states the claim could not be read as a complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages under the Employment Rights Acts 1994. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.