Case 3312546/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Sharif El-Fiky v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3312546/2021
- Decision date
- 26 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hoyle
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Sharif El-Fiky
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by Tesco Stores Limited as a delivery assistant from 13 November 2013 until 5 February 2021. He brought a claim of unfair dismissal. The hearing was a preliminary hearing to determine the respondent's jurisdictional objection that the claim had not been presented in time.
The Tribunal proceeded in the claimant's absence after finding that he had been sent notice and joining details, had not applied to adjourn, and had not complied with case management orders. The Tribunal also amended the respondent's name to Tesco Stores Limited.
The Tribunal found that the effective date of termination was 5 February 2021, ACAS issued the early conciliation certificate on 27 May 2021, and the ET1 was received on 29 June 2021, two days late. There was no information or evidence showing that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the complaint in time. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed under section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996 for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was dismissed because the ET1 was presented outside the time limit in section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 18A Employment Tribunal Act 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- rule 47 of The Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.