Case 3312499/2021 · Employment Tribunal
No appearance For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 3312499/2021
- Decision date
- 16 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
1 namedClaimant
No appearance For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge S Moore on 16 August 2022. The Claimant did not attend. The Respondent argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the Claimant had not undertaken ACAS Early Conciliation, that the breach of contract claim was time-barred, and that the statutory redundancy pay claim had no reasonable prospect of success.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Struck out because the Claimant failed to undertake ACAS Early Conciliation, and also because the claim had no reasonable prospect of success since the Respondent had already paid the statutory redundancy payment. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Struck out because the Claimant failed to undertake ACAS Early Conciliation. The Tribunal also held it was brought out of time under Article 7 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 18A Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- regulation 3 Early Conciliation Regulations 2014
- rule 12(2) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Article 7 Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- 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.
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.