Case 3311125/2023 · Employment Tribunal
T Dhaliwal v British Airways plc — 2024
- Case reference
- 3311125/2023
- Decision date
- 5 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Skehan Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
T Dhaliwal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was a public preliminary hearing to decide whether the unfair dismissal and unauthorised deduction from wages complaints were presented outside the statutory time limits. The claimant did not attend and made a late postponement request on the morning of the hearing, which was refused. The tribunal proceeded in his absence under Rule 47 after considering the information provided and the overriding objective.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant's employment ended on 6 October 2022, the primary three-month time limit expired on 5 January 2023, ACAS early conciliation was not started until 20 August 2023, and the ET1 was presented on 22 September 2023. The wages claim was said to relate to unpaid holiday pay, with any entitlement crystallising on the final day of employment.
The claimant had not complied with tribunal orders requiring evidence and a statement explaining why the claim had not been issued in time. The tribunal found there was nothing before it to conclude that it was not reasonably practicable to comply with the primary limitation period, and no evidence explaining the further delay. The claims were therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The judgment also recorded alternative strike-out grounds that would have applied if the claims had not been dismissed on limitation grounds.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time and therefore had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unauthorised deduction from wages claim was stated to relate to unpaid holiday pay. It was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit; the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time and therefore had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 47 of the ET Rules
- sections 111(2)(a) and (b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- sections 23(2) to (4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Rule 37 of the ET Rules
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.