Case 3311659/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ashley (Counsel). For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 3311659/2020
- Decision date
- 26 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Ashley (Counsel). For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary issue hearing before Employment Judge Postle at Norwich on 30 July 2021. The only claim identified in the written judgment was the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint under the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the issue for determination was whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear it despite the time limit point.
The Tribunal held that it did have jurisdiction. It found that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within the three-month period and that the claim was then issued within a further five days, which the Tribunal considered to be a reasonable period. No merits findings or monetary remedy were determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary issue only. The Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction because it was not reasonably practicable for the unfair dismissal claim to be presented within the three-month period, and the claim was then issued five days later, which the Tribunal considered reasonable. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- not reasonably practicable
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.
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.