Case 3313573/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 3313573/2019
- Decision date
- 25 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wyeth OPEN
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 25 May 2021 before Employment Judge Wyeth, the tribunal considered the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal, unauthorised deduction of wages, and breach of contract. It held that all three complaints were out of time.
The tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for the complaints to have been presented within the time limit and that it would not be reasonable to extend time. On that basis, the tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaints.
The judgment records that, for the avoidance of doubt, the claim was dismissed in its entirety because all complaints were out of time. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Found to be out of time; the tribunal held it was reasonably practicable for the complaint to have been presented within time and that it would not be reasonable to extend time, so it lacked jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Found to be out of time; the tribunal held it was reasonably practicable for the complaint to have been presented within time and that it would not be reasonable to extend time, so it lacked jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Found to be out of time; the tribunal held it was reasonably practicable for the complaint to have been presented within time and that it would not be reasonable to extend time, so it lacked jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- reasonable to extend time
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.