Case 3313746/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr A Effiong (Representative) For the v Respondent — 2023

Case reference: 3313746/2022
Decision date: 28 July 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Mr A Effiong (Representative) For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the CVP hearing in Watford on 1 June 2023, the parties agreed that the claims had been presented late and that the only issue was whether time should be extended so the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear them. The tribunal did not determine the merits of the claims; it dealt only with the limitation issue.

The tribunal held that the claim for constructive unfair dismissal was not brought in time. The claimant had not established that it was not reasonably practicable to present that claim within the relevant time limit, so the tribunal found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear it.

The tribunal also held that the Equality Act claims were out of time. The claimant had not established that it would be just and equitable to extend time for those claims, so they were not permitted to proceed. No remedy was awarded.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Constructive dismissal	The judgment states that the claim for constructive unfair dismissal was not brought in time. The claimant did not establish that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, so the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear it.	Dismissed	—	—
Other	The judgment refers to various Equality Act claims but does not identify the individual protected characteristics or legal labels in the extracted text. The tribunal held that those claims were also out of time and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.