Case 3316150/2019 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Ms S Hougie, Solicitor — 2018

Case reference: 3316150/2019
Decision date: 31 December 2018
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Tynan Appearances
Venue: Watford

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Ms S Hougie, Solicitor

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a preliminary hearing on time limits. The claimant had presented his ET1 on 31 May 2019 after ACAS early conciliation between 5 April and 5 May 2019. The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant resigned on 16 October 2018, as the respondent said, or whether his employment ended later, as the claimant contended.

The tribunal applied an objective approach to the claimant's texts and surrounding circumstances. It accepted that the exchanges in mid-October 2018 were heated and that the claimant had used language associated with constructive dismissal, but it found that the messages, including statements such as "I am leaving" and "I am done here", amounted to a resignation. The judge attached weight to a later email on 26 October 2018 saying "I will have left the company by then", to the fact that the claimant did no further work after 24 December 2018, and to the later email referring to a "final salary payment" of £8,177.35. The tribunal also found that the claimant's limited attendance at the offices in March 2019 was for reports connected with ongoing discussions and not a return to work.

On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimant's employment ended on 31 December 2018 for statutory purposes. It therefore struck out the unfair dismissal claim and the unlawful deduction from wages claim as out of time. The judgment said the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint because the effective date of termination was before 5 January 2019, and it treated the wage claim as also time-barred.

The redundancy payment claim was treated differently. The tribunal found it had been presented in time because it was brought within six months of the effective date of termination, but the judge said it was unclear why the claimant said he was entitled to redundancy pay on the facts found. The claimant was invited to show cause why that claim should not itself be struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success. No monetary award was made.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Struck out at a preliminary hearing because the tribunal found the claim was presented out of time. The tribunal held that the claimant had resigned on 16 October 2018 and that the effective date of termination was 31 December 2018, so it had no jurisdiction under s.111(2) ERA 1996.	Struck out	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The claim for arrears of pay and other payments was struck out as out of time under s.23 ERA 1996. The tribunal found that the claimant had left employment by 31 December 2018 and that the claim was not within the statutory time limit.	Struck out	—	—
Redundancy	The tribunal held that the redundancy payment claim had been presented in time because it was within six months of the effective date of termination, but it was not finally determined. The judge said the claimant had not explained the basis for redundancy entitlement on the facts found and invited him to show cause why the claim should not be struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

8 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.