Case 3312304/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3312304/2023
- Decision date
- 23 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 4 July 2024, Employment Judge Alliott considered whether Mr Nnanna Emole’s unfair dismissal claim, against Cygnet Mental Hospital, had been presented out of time. The tribunal applied section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and considered whether it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to be presented within the three-month time limit, taking account of early conciliation under section 207B.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the complaint was presented 3 months and 19 days late. It held that it was reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, so it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable test
- Dedman v British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd
- Walls Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Asda Stores Ltd v Kauser
- Rule 76 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- s.84 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.