Case 3311139/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Ogilvi, Consultant For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3311139/2023
- Decision date
- 22 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge French
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr L Ogilvi, Consultant For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal and notice pay. At the outset of the hearing, his representative confirmed that holiday pay and arrears of pay were not standalone claims and were relevant to quantum only.
The tribunal found that the effective date of termination was 24 March 2023, when the claimant was made aware of the dismissal letter through Mr Shoye, whom the tribunal found had authority to act on his behalf in employment matters. On that basis, the claim presented on 22 September 2023 was outside the applicable three-month time limit.
The tribunal accepted that it had not been reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim by 23 June 2023 while he was in prison. It was not satisfied, however, that the claim was presented within a reasonable further period after his release on 11 August 2023, and dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal dismissed the claim because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and was not presented within a reasonable further period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant brought a notice pay claim. The tribunal dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction because the claim was out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- effective date of termination
- reasonably practicable
- reasonable further period
- Gisda Cyf v Barrett [2010] UKSC 41
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.