Case 3315385/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Uruthiraneson v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3315385/2022
- Decision date
- 19 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bansal Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Uruthiraneson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear the claim in light of the time limit issue. The written judgment records that the Tribunal was satisfied it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present his claim within the primary time limit, and states that the Tribunal therefore did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim, which was dismissed.
The respondent's application for costs was refused. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment states that written reasons would only be provided if requested within the applicable period.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The gov.uk listing categorises the case as including unfair dismissal. The short judgment refers only to 'the claim' and dismisses it for lack of jurisdiction; it does not separately analyse this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The gov.uk listing categorises the case as including unlawful deduction from wages. The short judgment refers only to 'the claim' and dismisses it for lack of jurisdiction; it does not separately analyse this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.