Case 3313100/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr Brook, Consultant — 2022
- Case reference
- 3313100/2021
- Decision date
- 12 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Postle heard the case at Norwich on 3 May 2022. The claimant, Mr Matthew Perllman, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr Brook, Consultant.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant’s claim for automatic unfair dismissal for whistle blowing and asserting health and safety, together with the claim for unlawful deductions of wages. The stated reason was limitation: both claims were issued three months outside the time limits, even after allowing for ACAS Early Conciliation.
The judgment records the tribunal’s view that it was reasonably practical to have issued the claim in time. No merits findings or monetary remedy were recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the claim for automatic unfair dismissal for whistle blowing and asserting health and safety was dismissed because it was issued three months outside the time limits, allowing for ACAS Early Conciliation, and it was reasonably practical to have issued the claim in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment dismisses the unlawful deductions of wages claim on the same limitation basis: it was issued three months outside the time limits, allowing for ACAS Early Conciliation, and it was reasonably practical to have issued in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.